Welcome everyone.
My name is Sandy Sandy, and I'm a national import specialist responsible
for jewelry and writing instruments.
And today I will be discussing two headquarters rulings on jewelry.
Before I discuss, those rulings are here is the CBP mission statement
as well as the Office of Trade mission statement, the Office
of Trade facilitates a legitimate trade and forces US laws and protects the
American economy to ensure consumer safety
and to create a level playing field for American businesses.
Next, the first of two disclaimers, this webinar is
for informational purposes only and reliance solely
on the general information contained in this webinar
may not be considered reasonable care.
Now I wanna make sure that you all are not napping.
Especially all the East Coasters for home.
This is after lunch.
So please if you can show me your awake and post your opinion in the chat box.
The question is if the Shank of a ring was either foreign
or US made and it was assembled to a US made ring head
in the United States a foreign diamond was added
and there was some further processing of the
ring in the United States.
Who thinks this ring would be considered made in USA
and who would consider it foreign maid?
OK, alright, we have some votes here we have some input.
Foreign so far.
Fine.
Ohhh my gosh so far it's all fine.
You one for USA.
OK, foreign.
Foreign.
OK, thank you.
I'm glad you guys are awake.
So.
Looks like we have mostly foreign out here form because of value.
Interesting.
OK and a couple USA.
What kind of diamond?
OK.
Foreign essential character, OK.
Foreign US, US.
USA.
OK.
Thank you all for your input and we'll go ahead and uh move forward.
I'm.
I'm not gonna give you the answer yet.
This is what we'll be discussing.
Now let's take a closer look at what the importer stated was included
in the processing of the ring in the USA.
First of all, there was a thorough inspection of the ring, head,
diamond and Shank.
The ring had was assembled to the Shank.
Next, the ring was sized.
The diamond was set, and the ring head, and it was polished.
And lastly it was plated.
Now that I have told you a little bit more
about the process saying let's have two new opinion polls,
the first opinion poll is what you think the correct country of origin is
for a ring that is made with
a foreign made Shank.
A US ring head, a foreign diamond and it is processed in the US.
Is it a foreign ring or USA made ring?
Foreign.
USA.
Born.
OK.
So we still have kind of a variety.
And seeing a lot of foreigns.
And somebody asked, oh, what are the US processes
since that is important, I'm just gonna go back right now and say.
Now further work or material added to a article
in another country must affect a substantial transformation,
and this is key substantial transformation in order
to render such other country, the
country of origin and a substantial transformation occurs when,
as a result of a process an article emerges
having a distinctive name character.
Or use from the original material subjected to the process.
If the manufacturing process is a minor one, which leaves the identity
of the imported article intact, a substantial transformation
has not occurred.
Now let's take a look at a previous ruling, UM, that dealt
with the country of origin of a gold ring that was cast in Hong Kong.
And diamonds from India that was set in China.
This is from 2019.
Did a substantial transformation take place?
What do you all think?
No, no substantial transformation.
So we're getting some nose and some yeses.
OK, some yeses again.
Some nose.
OK, so moving on, what is the country of origin of the finished ring?
What do you all think?
Is a country of origin of the finished ring Hong Kong?
I'm seeing a lot of Hong Kong, a India.
That would be where the diamond was from Hong Kong, India.
So some India, some Hong Kong.
Anybody think China or Mexico?
China, OK.
India.
Hong Kong.
China.
OK, Hong Kong.
And what was the scenario again, I'll go back to it.
So a gold ring cast in Hong Kong.
Diamonds.
From India and it was set in China.
Did it substantial transformation take place and what is the country
of origin?
So China.
Hong Kong.
China.
Nobody.
Mexico.
OK.
We'll move forward.
Yes, the the diamond.
Uh was from India.
It came cut and polished already.
So I'm seeing some China, India.
And.
Hong Kong.
OK.
So moving forward, the country of origin for the finished ring was determined
to be Hong Kong and that is where the gold ring was cast.
OK, now let's take a look at another ruling dealing with the country
of origin of jewelry.
A ruling N 271750 from 2016.
In this case, the gold ring was cast in the US, then diamonds
from various countries
were set in the Dominican Republic.
Now, in this scenario, the setting of the diamonds was not was
a lot more involved since it include a pavey setting with many small diamonds.
In addition to the main diamond, and finally it was polished
in the United States.
So take a look at the scenario again.
It's Goldring cast in the US.
Diamonds from various countries.
It was set in the Dominican Republic, including the Pavee setting.
And it was published in the United States.
So did a substantial take transformation take place?
So everybody's saying so far US there seems to be a lot of.
Uniformity there no no substantial transformation took place,
and that it's the US.
As see one that there was a substantial transformation.
OK, so moving on.
What is the country of origin of the finished ring?
80 Is it United States, Dominican Republic various or India?
So I'm seeing a lot for you as I'm seeing one for the Dominican Republic.
Us so it looks like it's us or Dominican Republic.
And some various I have one there for various.
Dominican Republic.
OK, so moving forward.
The country of origin was determined to be the United States,
where the gold ring was cast so you guys can start seeing a pattern on what?
Has been determined to be important, uh when determining the country
of origin of jewelry.
So now in the headquarters ruling that I have been discussing,
headquarters decided that they did not find that the inspecting the ring,
head, diamond and Shank, the ring head integration, sizing of the ring
polishing setting of the diamond in the ring head and plating
to be considered sufficient processing to be considered
substantial transformation.
So to illustrate for further clarity.
The country of origin of the diamond engagement ring engagement rings,
UM say that three times fast is the country where the Shank is produced,
and here it is illustrated with a foreign Shanks.
So you have a
foreign Shank, the USA ring head of Foreign Diamond USA processing,
and the ring is considered form.
And here it is illustrated with the USA may change.
So you have a USA chank a USA made ring head
a foreign Diamond USA processing boy.
That's small font and.
The ring was determined to be USA.
So it really very much depends on where the Shank is made.
Now, no, moving on to the next issue is, how should these rings be marked?
Please add your comments to the chat box
on how you think these rings should be marked.
Die stamped.
OK.
Engraved on the ring.
So we're getting some of the.
Thy stamped inscribed.
Edge to engraved.
Hang tag.
Label.
Another hand tag in a way that is visible for the ultimate consumer.
OK.
So we'll go ahead.
So now the importer stated that due to the size and delicacy
of the diamond engagement rings, they are unable to edge the country
of origin markings directly on the products.
They also stated that die stamping or cast in the mold lettering
on these products would not be legible for the customer.
Umm, so they gave an example of how they propose to mark.
The jewelry box on the outermost container with assembled
in the US with diamonds made in India and setting made in Laos
if it was made in Laos in case CBP did not find that the country
of origin of the
diamond engagement rings is the United States.
So do you think that the proposed method of marking is acceptable?
And just to to go back, they had wanted to mark the outermost container.
Uh, with assembled in the United States, Diamond made
in India setting made in Laos or whatever foreign country.
So no, I see one.
Yes, some yeses and some nodes.
And now there should be a.
A tag on the ring.
No woman wants the country of origin inside her band.
I see.
That's an interesting thought.
That's OK.
So 19 CFR 134, one D defines the term ultimate purchaser
as generally the last person in the United States
who will receive the article in the form in which it was imported.
If an article is to be sold at retail and it's imported form,
the purchaser at retail is the ultimate purchaser.
And since the diamond engagement rings are not substantially.
Transformed upon importation, the ultimate purchaser is the consumer
who purchase it from the importer.
So Umm, how should the finished rings be marked?
Should it be die stamped?
Does the marking on the box office?
Is it exempt from marking?
Should it be marked with a hang tag or adhesive sticker?
So I'm seeing a lot of D's handbag AB the marking on the box offices?
Another bee, a die stamped.
My tea is another a die stamped another D with a hang tag.
Another B that the marking on the box offices D hang tag
or sticker C it is exempt from marking.
D.
Uh, with the hang tag or sticker?
Be Rd OK.
So B would be the marking on the box or hang tag.
See exempt from marking.
OK, so let's find out.
So the answer is both C&D and let me explain.
So for the engagement rings with a Shank from the United States.
Since the country of origin for marking purposes will be United States,
they will be exempted from marking from the country
of origin marking requirements.
Now, if the company wanted to mark the diamond engagement rings
or the packaging containing these rings to indicate mid in USA,
the marking must comply with the requirements
of the Federal Trade Commission.
And.
The other correct answer was D and so these are for the engagement rings
with a Shank that was from a foreign country.
So not a USA made Shank.
It was from a foreign country assembled in May not be
used to indicate the country of origin of the diamond engagement rings
since the assembly operations do not result in substantial transformation.
Instead the diamond engagement rings.
With a Shank from a foreign country should be marked with the name
of the country from where the Shank is made,
preceded by maiden or a product of.
And here are the hang tags and I believe many
of you mentioned this the OR adhesive stickers indicating the country
of origin and this would be an acceptable method of marking.
I am the diamond engagement rings.
Now let's talk about the marking of the jewelry box.
Should it be marked with the same country of origin as the ring,
or should it be marked with the country of origin of the box?
Or is it exempt from marking?
Or does the marking on the ring suffice?
What do you all think?
The box so.
The box has to be marked.
So should it be marked with the same controversion as the ring as an A?
Or with a country of origin of the box, as in B.
So I'm seeing a lot of A's some's.
Did the marking on the ring suffices.
And some bees with a country of origin of the box.
Seeing several bees.
D marking on the back on the rings offices, more beers and 1A
with the same color.
Country of origin as the ring.
D So we're kind of like, everywhere, see, or DRA.
The correct answer is the jewelry box should be marked with a country
of origin of the box.
And I know that's not necessarily intuitive, but I'll explain why
and it comes.
Uh, it's the result of this case.
Bausch and Lomb incorporated versus the United States.
UM at the Court of International Trade, considered the question
of whether imported glasses that were.
Imported glasses that were imported.
Sorry, imported glass sunglass cases.
157 Uh, we're disposable containers for purposes of country
of origin marking requirements.
paper or polyethylene bags or paper board boxes, which 19 CFR One 3424 lists
as examples of disposable containers not required to be marked individually.
paper or polyethylene bags or paper board boxes, which 19 CFR One 3424 lists
as examples of disposable containers not required to be marked individually.
With their own country of origin.
So given that the jewelry cases did not appear to be of a kind,
that is typically disposed of.
They are required to be marked with their own country of origin.
Draft.
Yeah, sorry.
So now that we've been talking about all these engagement rings,
let's take a little trivia break and see if any of you know a little bit
of history regarding engagement rings.
And do you know when was the first time that a diamond appeared
on an engagement ring?
Was it when Roman general Marc Anthony and this is not Jlo's ex Marc Anthony?
The post it Cleopatra Queen of Egypt or Louis the 15th of France,
proposed to Madame Pompadour or Archduke Maximilian of Austria proposed
to Mary of Burgundy, or lastly,
when Prince Albert proposed to Queen Victoria.
So I'm seeing a lot of Prince, Prince Albert or.
Marc Anthony or.
Here, who said?
See D The last one.
See.
OK, so DDI am Maximilian OK.
And that that's in bold.
So a lot of seeds now.
And roomy knows this.
Maximilian.
Alright.
OK, let's hear from is right.
Let's take a quick look.
She is right.
The correct answer is worth when Archduke Maximilian of Austria,
Austria, proposed to marry Burgundy and this was in 1947 night 1477,
Archduke Maximilian of Austria
commissioned the very first diamond engagement ring on record
for Mary of Burgundy, and this sparked a trend
for diamond rings among European aristocracy and nobility.
Umm.
And do any of you all know how?
If if it was forever as the diamond supposed to be.
Did.
How long they're marriage lasted, or if it lasted.
Till the end.
Does anyone know?
Just out of curiosity now.
Off with their head.
No.
Yeah, that could be.
That would be more like England, right?
And no idea.
OK, well, this one.
Apparently they did marry for love.
And they had three children.
But unfortunately, after five years, she had a horseback riding accident.
So.
That till death do us part.
So yes, correct.
OK, moving on.
The second, uh ruling that I will be reviewing today
is headquarters ruling H20, eight 1923 from November 2018
and the subject of the ruling is the classification
of an electronic flashing button.
Now a little bit of information about this particular item.
It is a circular hard plastic.
With a PIN or clip mounted on the back
and within the plastic housing there is an expression or saying
such as happy Birthday.
The greatest I made it et cetera.
The button incorporates four rapidly flashing LED lights.
The item is battery powered and has an on off switch located
on the back and the button can be worn on a lapel.
Or a shirt.
It is a novelty item which is to be worn on festive occasions.
The ruling, considered which one of the following headings uh
the electronic flashing button should be classified in heading 7117,
which provides for imitation jewelry heading 9505,
which provides for festive articles, or heading 8543,
which provides for electrical machines and apparatus.
So it's your turn to weigh in before we review this ruling under
which of these Hennings do you think that the electronic flashing button
should be classified as heading 7117 for imitation jewelry?
Umm, I'm seeing a lot of bees, so that would be heading 9505
as festive articles.
Or anybody for heading any 543 as electrical machines or apparatus.
I mean it did have somebody 9929.
Umm.
It did have a battery and on off.
Or, as specifically provided for under heading Diety 929
as flashing electronic buttons, I got one vote for that.
So I'm seeing some A's and B's.
One see here.
A sea.
Any more votes?
So D is the last one as an electronic flashing button
specifically provided for.
It is tricky, right knowing, UM, highly classified these items
that can overlap among various headings, so I'm not gonna give you
the final answer yet since I will be discussing it.
Umm in more depth as we go through each heading potential heading.
However I can tell you that heading 9929 does not exist and
if it did there probably would be no need for this ruling
as it would be specifically provided for.
So that was kind of a trick question, I apologize.
So moving on, let's begin with heading 8543,
which covers electrical machines
and apparatus, and I know a couple of you voted for that.
Now the explanatory notes for heading 8543 state that
if the merchandise is covered more specifically by a heading.
Of another chapter of the tariff.
Then it would not be classified in 8543.
So could it be classified more specifically by any one
of the other headings we are considering?
So do you think that this could be considered jewelry?
You know, some more specifically.
So I'm seeing a, yes.
So more specifically provided for us.
So yeah, I'm seeing a couple yeses here.
Yes.
Anymore?
Yeses or Nos.
So yeah.
See ohh OK, one now and one more.
OK.
Yes, yes.
OK.
No, another no.
Personally, no.
But with customs it could be yes.
OK.
Yeah, well, it's let's figure out here what it says.
So in review of the electronic flashing button, headquarters noted
that it features a PIN or clip upon which the button is mounted.
And it is the type of pin or clip that it is that is routinely affixed
to jewelry, pins or brooches that are worn on a lapel or a shirt.
Therefore, the electronic flashing buttons are prima facie classifiable
and heading 7117.
As imitation jewelry.
So the merchandise is potentially covered more specifically
by another heading.
Therefore it would not be classified in the heading 8543.
Yeah, she does not look happy.
That's grumpy cat.
Out a quick trivia break on the topic of pins or brooches.
Do any of you know who wrote the book?
Read my pins about their use of jewelry to convey foreign policy messages.
Was it Queen Elizabeth, Hillary Clinton, Margaret Thatcher,
or Madeleine Albright?
So I'm seeing.
DJ's CD's.
Dees.
Uh people really seem to know this day is a lot of D's here.
You're gonna.
Yeah.
OK, another D Albright.
So a lot of these, Madeline.
So a lot of you seem to.
Be familiar with this.
So a lot of deeds.
OK, so I'll give you a couple more seconds.
What me, I know I don't.
I don't wear jewelry to convey foreign policy messages.
OK, let's find out who it was.
It was Madeleine Albright.
And I think a lot of you.
And a snake pen Albright wore was a response to Iraqi officials description
of her as an unparalleled serpent.
She also once wore a bug pin to let Russian diplomats know
that the US was unhappy that a State department room had been bugged.
That's pretty big bug.
You can see it on her lapel there speaking, I guess,
in front of the United Nations.
OK.
So moving on, while the electronic flashing pins
are potentially classifiable in heading 7117,
heading 9505 must also be considered.
And classification of merchandise as festive articles
under Chapter 95 requires that you.
That the article satisfy two criteria.
One, it must be closely associated with a festive occasion, and two,
it must be used or prints or displayed principally
during that festive occasion.
In addition, the item must be closely associated with a festive occasion
to the degree that the physical appearance of an article is
so intrinsically linked to that festive occasion that it's used during.
Any other time periods would be very abnormal, aberrant, aberrant.
So if the buttons are potentially classifiable under heading.
7117 and heading 9505 how do we determine which one applies?
GRI 3, A, which states in pertinent part when the goods are.
Prima facie, classifiable under two or more headings, the heading
which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to.
Umm.
Headings, providing a more general description.
So.
Which one do you think is most specific?
So Lasten heading would be if it was Jari 3C.
We're looking at GR3A here, so do you all think the imitation jewelry
or festive articles or you are a cat or dog person?
So I'm seeing some festive so you think festive is more, more general.
You're a cat person, OK?
Like.
Imitation jewelry.
OK, festives.
I'm seeing kind of.
Umm.
Almost like 5050 that you're a dog person.
I have one of each, so used to have four but.
Any 505.
OK, so I'm seeing kind of like a 5050 on where you think it might end up?
Or what is more specific?
So let's find out.
Now, imitation jewelry is limited to small items
of personal adornment that do not contain an appreciable amount
of precious or semi precious stones or metal,
making them imitation and festive.
Articles, on the other hand, need to be closely associated with
and used or displayed during a festive occasion.
Now, because heading 9505 covers a far broader range of items
than heading 7117.
In this case, heading 7117 is more specific.
Heading 7117 is also more specific because it describes the item
by name imitation jewelry that rather than a class festive articles,
a category festive articles,
the imitation jewelry heading is more specific than the festive articles.
Umm, heading because it covers a narrower set of items and as a result.
Are the imported merchandise is classifiable under heading 7117?
Rather than under heading 9505.
By application of GRI one and three AV electronic flashing buttons
are classified and heading 7117 specifically
in heading 7117 ninety Seventy 57500 which provides for a plastic jewelry.
So that concludes my discussion of these two headquarters rulings.
And here is the website where this ruling
where this webinar will be posted as well as other helpful CBP webinars.
And here is the website where you can request a binding ruling.
And here is my contact information if you would like to reach me.
I thank everyone for attending and does anyone have any questions
I see here isn't the pin made of metal?
Umm, it probably had some metal, but it was predominantly plastic
and probably the visual appeal large part of it was from the plastic.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Any updates on the headquarter ruling on the cubic zirconia jewelry?
Not yet.
Sorry.
I know people are interested in that.
Not yet.
Thank you.
And I'll I'll go back to the uh the link where the oh, there it is.
Where the Jenny.
Posted and and I want to thank very much.
I'm Jinny and Rumi and Miriam and Fung
for making this webinar possible and making it easy for me
with all of their incredible expertise.
I really appreciate it.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
And yet the questions.
290 Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Really appreciate it.
Hopefully it was clear.
So I think thank you so much.
Thank you everyone.
Let me see our will there be ohh uh for ICP.
I definitely would uh like to work towards having a jewelry ICP
in the near future.
Thank you Ricardo.
Appreciate it.
Thank you, Ivan.
Thanks.
Any other questions?
Thank you.
I'm glad you enjoyed being part of the action
and I appreciate your participation.
It really makes a big difference for me.
Thank you.
Looks like we don't have any more questions.
I thank you all very much for attending and I thank you all
for bearing with me and participating.
I really appreciate it.
Thank you.
Apart from this webinar, don't have any currently uh scheduled,
but there is definitely many webinars that are being offered
by national import specialist.
Umm.
I'm almost weekly.
And there should be the schedule on the CBP website.
Thank you all.
Ah, there you go.
There's the list.
June of UH webinars.
Thank you.
Yeah, there's many webinars.
Uh provided by all the different national import specialist here
at customs.
Covering a wide variety of merchandise and issues.
If any of you all I'll are interested, great.
So I don't see any more questions and thank you all for attending.