Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning Certain Ethernet Switches, 75360-75362 [2013-29470]
Download as PDF
75360
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 11, 2013 / Notices
subcommittee comprised of affected
port users and stakeholders. The goal of
these subcommittees will be to gather
information to help the COTP assess the
suitability of the associated waterway
for increased LHG marine traffic as it
relates to navigational safety and
security.
On January 24, 2011, the Coast Guard
published Navigation and Vessel
Inspection Circular (NVIC) 01–2011,
‘‘Guidance Related to Waterfront
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Facilities.’’
NVIC 01–2011 provides guidance for
owners and operators seeking approval
to build and operate LNG facilities.
While NVIC 01–2011 is specific to LNG,
it provides useful process information
and guidance for owners and operators
seeking approval to build and operate
LHG facilities as well. The Coast Guard
will refer to NVIC 01–2011 for process
information and guidance in evaluating
INVISTA’s WSA. A copy of NVIC 01–
2011 is available for viewing in the
public docket for this notice and also on
the Coast Guard’s Web site at https://
www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/2010s.asp.
This notice is issued under authority
of 33 U.S.C. 1223–1225, Department of
Homeland Security Delegation Number
0170.1(70), 33 CFR 127.009, and 33 CFR
103.205.
Dated: November 18, 2013.
J.M. Twomey,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting
Captain of the Port, Port Arthur.
[FR Doc. 2013–29472 Filed 12–10–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Customs and Border Protection
Bureau
Notice of Issuance of Final
Determination Concerning Certain
Ethernet Switches
The final determination was
issued on December 3, 2013. A copy of
the final determination is attached. Any
party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR
177.22(d), may seek judicial review of
this final determination on or before
January 10, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Heather K. Pinnock, Valuation and
Special Programs Branch: (202) 325–
0034.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is
hereby given that on December 3, 2013,
pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection
Regulations (19 CFR part 177, subpart
B), CBP issued a final determination
concerning the country of origin of
Ethernet switches which may be offered
to the U.S. Government under an
undesignated government procurement
contract. This final determination, HQ
H241177, was issued under procedures
set forth at 19 CFR part 177, subpart B,
which implements Title III of the Trade
Agreements Act of 1979, as amended
(19 U.S.C. 2511–18). In the final
determination, CBP concluded that,
based upon the facts presented, the last
substantial transformation took place in
Malaysia, where the switches were
assembled. Therefore, the country of
origin of the switches is Malaysia for
purposes of U.S. Government
procurement.
Section 177.29, CBP Regulations (19
CFR 177.29), provides that a notice of
final determination shall be published
in the Federal Register within 60 days
of the date the final determination is
issued. Section 177.30, CBP Regulations
(19 CFR 177.30), provides that any
party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR
177.22(d), may seek judicial review of a
final determination within 30 days of
publication of such determination in the
Federal Register.
DATES:
AGENCY:
Dated: December 3, 2013.
Sandra L. Bell,
Executive Director, Regulations and Rulings,
Office of International Trade.
This document provides
notice that U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (‘‘CBP’’) has issued a final
determination concerning the country of
origin of certain Ethernet switches.
Based upon the facts presented, CBP has
concluded that Malaysia, where the
switches were assembled, is the country
where the last substantial
transformation occurred. Therefore, the
country of origin of the switches is
Malaysia for purposes of U.S.
Government procurement.
Attachment
HQ H241177
December 3, 2013
MAR OT:RR:CTF:VS H241177 HkP
CATEGORY: Origin
Josephine Aiello LeBeau, Esq.
Anne Seymour, Esq.
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC
1700 K Street NW., Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20006–3817
RE: U.S. Government Procurement; Country
of Origin of Local Area Network Switches;
Substantial Transformation
Dear Ms. LeBeau and Ms. Seymour:
This is in response to your letter, dated
March 13, 2013, requesting a final
determination on behalf of Arista Networks,
Inc. (‘‘Arista’’), pursuant to subpart B of part
U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Notice of final determination.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:00 Dec 10, 2013
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
177 of the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (‘‘CBP’’) Regulations (19 C.F.R.
Part 177). Under these regulations, which
implement Title III of the Trade Agreements
Act of 1979 (‘‘TAA’’), as amended (19 U.S.C.
§ 2511 et seq.), CBP issues country of origin
advisory rulings and final determinations as
to whether an article is or would be a product
of a designated country or instrumentality for
the purposes of granting waivers of certain
‘‘Buy American’’ restrictions in U.S. law or
practice for products offered for sale to the
U.S. Government. Your letter was forwarded
to this office by the National Commodity
Specialist Division on April 8, 2013.
This final determination concerns the
country of origin of Arista’s 7000, 7100, 7200,
series (‘‘7 Series’’) local area network
(‘‘LAN’’) switches. We note that as a U.S.
importer, Arista is a party-at-interest within
the meaning of 19 C.F.R. § 177.22(d)(1) and
is entitled to request this final determination.
FACTS:
Arista plans to import fully functional 7
Series Ethernet switches from Singapore.1
The switches are designed to interconnect
servers and storage appliances in data
centers. Each switch consists of one or more
printed circuit board assembly (‘‘PCBA’’),
chassis, top cover, power supply, and fans.
The switches operate using Arista’s
Extensible Operating System (‘‘EOSTM’’)
software.
Arista’s EOS software is designed to
provide switching functionality, secure
administration, increase reliability, and to
optimize network management. Specifically,
EOS software provides the following
capabilities and benefits to Ethernet
switches: in-service software upgrade,
software fault containment, fault repair,
security exploit containment, and scalable
management interface. According to your
submission, the units imported from
Singapore could not function as network
switches without this software, which was
developed in the United States at
considerable cost to Arista. Since 2005, more
than 140 software engineers have continued
to develop the software and more than 80
percent of Arista’s Research and
Development spending has been on EOS
software development.
Manufacturing operations are performed in
China, Malaysia and Singapore. Software
downloading operations, using U.S.-origin
software, take place only in Singapore.
The following operations occur in China:
The chassis and top cover are
manufactured from sheet metal.
The following operations occur in
Malaysia:
1. A printed circuit board is populated with
various electronic components to make a
PCBA.
2. The PCBA is tested to ensure functionality.
3. The power supply and fans are installed
in the chassis.
4. The PCBA is installed in the chassis.
1 CBP previously issued Headquarters Ruling
Letter H175415, dated October 7, 2011, to Arista
concerning the country of origin of non-functioning
7048, 7050, 7100, 7124, and 7500 series Ethernet
switches imported from China and programmed in
the United States with U.S.-origin software.
E:\FR\FM\11DEN1.SGM
11DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 11, 2013 / Notices
5. The chassis and top cover are assembled
together.
6. The serial numbers of the components are
entered into the data tracking system, and
the switch is packaged and shipped to
Singapore.
The following operations occur in
Singapore:
1. Custom configuration changes, such as
substitution of DC for AC power supplies
and/or installation of optional hardware
modules, are made.
2. U.S.-origin EOSTM software is downloaded
onto the flash memory on the PCBA.
3. The switch is tested, packaged, and
prepared for shipping.
The EOS software program dedicates the
hardware to its specific applications and the
only reprogramming operations that may be
done are updating the software to a different
version.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
ISSUE:
What is the country of origin of the Arista’s
7 Series Ethernet switches for purposes of
U.S. Government procurement?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Pursuant to Subpart B of Part 177, 19 CFR
§ 177.21 et seq., which implements Title III
of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as
amended (19 U.S.C. § 2511 et seq.), CBP
issues country of origin advisory rulings and
final determinations as to whether an article
is or would be a product of a designated
country or instrumentality for the purposes
of granting waivers of certain ‘‘Buy
American’’ restrictions in U.S. law or
practice for products offered for sale to the
U.S. Government.
Under the rule of origin set forth under 19
U.S.C. § 2518(4)(B):
An article is a product of a country or
instrumentality only if (i) it is wholly the
growth, product, or manufacture of that
country or instrumentality, or (ii) in the case
of an article which consists in whole or in
part of materials from another country or
instrumentality, it has been substantially
transformed into a new and different article
of commerce with a name, character, or use
distinct from that of the article or articles
from which it was so transformed.
See also 19 C.F.R. § 177.22(a).
In Data General v. United States, 4 Ct. Int’l
Trade 182 (1982), the court determined that
for purposes of determining eligibility under
item 807.00, Tariff Schedules of the United
States (predecessor to subheading
9802.00.80, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States), the programming of a
foreign PROM (Programmable Read-Only
Memory chip) in the United States
substantially transformed the PROM into a
U.S. article. In programming the imported
PROMs, the U.S. engineers systematically
caused various distinct electronic
interconnections to be formed within each
integrated circuit. The programming
bestowed upon each circuit its electronic
function, that is, its ‘‘memory’’ which could
be retrieved. A distinct physical change was
effected in the PROM by the opening or
closing of the fuses, depending on the
method of programming. This physical
alteration, not visible to the naked eye, could
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:00 Dec 10, 2013
Jkt 232001
be discerned by electronic testing of the
PROM. The court noted that the programs
were designed by a U.S. project engineer
with many years of experience in ‘‘designing
and building hardware.’’ In addition, the
court noted that while replicating the
program pattern from a ‘‘master’’ PROM may
be a quick one-step process, the development
of the pattern and the production of the
‘‘master’’ PROM required much time and
expertise. The court noted that it was
undisputed that programming altered the
character of a PROM. The essence of the
article, its interconnections or stored
memory, was established by programming.
The court concluded that altering the nonfunctioning circuitry comprising a PROM
through technological expertise in order to
produce a functioning read only memory
device, possessing a desired distinctive
circuit pattern, was no less a ‘‘substantial
transformation’’ than the manual
interconnection of transistors, resistors and
diodes upon a circuit board creating a similar
pattern.
In Texas Instruments v. United States, 681
F.2d 778, 782 (CCPA 1982), the court
observed that the substantial transformation
issue is a ‘‘mixed question of technology and
customs law.’’
In C.S.D. 84–85, 18 Cust. B. & Dec. 1044,
CBP stated:
We are of the opinion that the rationale of
the court in the Data General case may be
applied in the present case to support the
principle that the essence of an integrated
circuit memory storage device is established
by programming; . . . [W]e are of the opinion
that the programming (or reprogramming) of
an EPROM results in a new and different
article of commerce which would be
considered to be a product of the country
where the programming or reprogramming
takes place.
Accordingly, the programming of a device
that defines its use generally constitutes
substantial transformation. See also
Headquarters Ruling Letter (‘HQ’) 558868,
dated February 23, 1995 (programming of
SecureID Card substantially transforms the
card because it gives the card its character
and use as part of a security system and the
programming is a permanent change that
cannot be undone); HQ 735027, dated
September 7, 1993 (programming blank
media (EEPROM) with instructions that
allow it to perform certain functions that
prevent piracy of software constitute
substantial transformation); and, HQ 733085,
dated July 13, 1990; but see HQ 732870,
dated March 19, 1990 (formatting a blank
diskette does not constitute substantial
transformation because it does not add value,
does not involve complex or highly technical
operations and did not create a new or
different product); and, HQ 734518, dated
June 28, 1993, (motherboards are not
substantially transformed by the implanting
of the central processing unit on the board
because, whereas in Data General use was
being assigned to the PROM, the use of the
motherboard had already been determined
when the importer imported it).
You believe that under the manufacturing
scenario described in the FACTS section
above, Arista’s 7 Series Ethernet switches are
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
75361
products of Singapore. You argue that
without the EOS software, the units exported
from Singapore lack the intelligence to
perform as network switches. In fact, you
claim that the EOS software gives the
Malaysian switches their essential character
by providing network switching and routing
functionality, management functions,
network performance monitoring, security
and access control, and by allowing
interaction with other switches. Further,
programming the switches with the EOS
software creates a permanent change in the
PCBAs that cannot be undone by third
parties during the normal course of business.
The only reprogramming operation that may
be performed during the normal course of
business is either updating the installed
software or entering licensing keys that
enable the activation of additional EOS
software features.
In support of your position, you make a
two-pronged argument. The first is that the
switches are substantially transformed by
programming. As indicated above, CBP has
previously found that programming may
effect a substantial transformation.
The second prong of your argument is that,
when there are multiple manufacturing
locations, the country of origin is the country
where the last substantial transformation
occurs. In this case, you claim that
programming is the last substantial
transformation that the switches undergo,
hence, the country of origin is Singapore.
You cite HQ H170315 (July 28, 2011) and HQ
H203555 (April 23, 2012) as support.
HQ H203555 concerned the country of
origin of oscilloscopes made according to five
possible manufacturing scenarios. Regardless
of the scenario, components were assembled
into subassemblies, which were then made
into complete oscilloscopes, in Singapore.
Boards important to the function of the
oscilloscopes, incorporated into the
subassemblies in Singapore, were assembled
in Malaysia only or in Malaysia and
Singapore. In all cases, U.S.-origin firmware
was downloaded onto the fully assembled
oscilloscopes in Singapore. For all scenarios,
CBP found that there were three countries
where programming and/or assembly
operations took place, the last of which was
Singapore. However, no one country’s
operations dominated the manufacturing
operations of the oscilloscopes. The boards
assembled in Malaysia were important to the
function of the oscilloscopes, as was the U.S.
firmware and software used to program the
oscilloscopes in Singapore. Further, the
assembly in Singapore completed the
oscilloscopes. Therefore, the last substantial
transformation occurred in Singapore, which
was the country of origin for procurement
purposes.
HQ H170315 concerned the country of
origin of satellite telephones. CBP was asked
to consider six scenarios involving the
manufacture of PCBs in one country and the
programming of the PCBs with second
country software either in the first country or
in a third country where the phones were
assembled. In scenarios I, II, and VI, CBP
found that the country of origin of the phones
was Malaysia because, as the country where
the assembly and programming of the boards
E:\FR\FM\11DEN1.SGM
11DEN1
75362
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 11, 2013 / Notices
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
which conveyed the essential character of the
phones took place, that was the place where
the last substantial transformation occurred.
Moreover, subsequent assembly operations in
Singapore did not substantially transform the
programmed boards into a new and different
article. In scenarios III through V, the boards
were assembled in Malaysia or Malaysia and
Singapore. Handset programming took place
wholly, or in part, in Singapore, where the
phones were also assembled to completion.
For those scenarios, CBP found that the
country of origin of the phones was
Singapore.
We note that none of the rulings cited in
Arista’s submission (some discussed above)
are instructive because they do not address
situations in which assembly is performed in
one country and software is developed in a
second country and downloaded in a third
country. The rulings refer to situations in
which assembly and software downloading
are performed in one country using programs
developed in the same or another country, or
to situations in which assembly is performed
in one country and downloading is
performed in another country using programs
developed in the same country in which the
software is downloaded onto the article.
In this case, the switches are assembled to
completion in Malaysia and then shipped to
Singapore, where EOS software developed in
the United States at significant cost to Arista
and over many years is downloaded onto
them. It is claimed that the U.S.-origin EOS
software enables the imported switches to
interact with other network switches through
network switching and routing, and allows
for the management of functions such as
network performance monitoring and
security and access control; without this
software, the imported devices could not
function as Ethernet switches.
We find that the software downloading
performed in Singapore does not amount to
programming. Programming involves writing,
testing and implementing code necessary to
make a computer function in a certain way.
See Data General supra. See also ‘‘computer
program’’, Encyclop#dia Britannica (2013),
(9/19/2013) https://www.britannica.com/
EBchecked/topic/130654/computer-program,
which explains, in part, that ‘‘a program is
prepared by first formulating a task and then
expressing it in an appropriate computer
language, presumably one suited to the
application.’’
While the programming occurs in the U.S.,
the downloading occurs in Singapore. Given
these facts, we find that the country where
the last substantial transformation occurs is
Malaysia, that is, where the major assembly
processes are performed. The country of
origin for purposes of U.S. Government
procurement is Malaysia.
HOLDING:
Based on the facts provided, the last
substantial transformation occurs in
Malaysia. As such, the switches will be
considered products of Malaysia for purposes
of U.S. Government procurement.
Notice of this final determination will be
given in the Federal Register, as required by
19 CFR § 177.29. Any party-at-interest other
than the party which requested this final
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:00 Dec 10, 2013
Jkt 232001
determination may request, pursuant to 19
CFR § 177.31, that CBP reexamine the matter
anew and issue a new final determination.
Pursuant to 19 CFR § 177.30, any party-atinterest may, within 30 days of publication
of the Federal Register Notice referenced
above, seek judicial review of this final
determination before the Court of
International Trade.
Sincerely,
Sandra L. Bell,
Executive Director, Regulations and Rulings,
Office of International Trade.
[FR Doc. 2013–29470 Filed 12–10–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–14–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Notice of Issuance of Final
Determination Concerning Docave
Computer Software
U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Notice of final determination.
AGENCY:
This document provides
notice that U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (‘‘CBP’’) has issued a final
determination concerning the country of
origin of certain computer software
known as DocAve Software. Based upon
the facts presented, CBP has concluded
that the software build operations
performed in the United States
substantially transform software
modules developed in China. Therefore,
the country of origin of DocAve
Software is the United States for
purposes of U.S. Government
procurement.
DATES: The final determination was
issued on December 4, 2013. A copy of
the final determination is attached. Any
party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR
177.22(d), may seek judicial review of
this final determination on or before
January 10, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Heather K. Pinnock, Valuation and
Special Programs Branch: (202) 325–
0034.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is
hereby given that on December 4, 2013,
pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection
Regulations (19 CFR Part 177, subpart
B), CBP issued a final determination
concerning the country of origin of
certain computer software known as
DocAve Software, which may be offered
to the U.S. Government under an
undesignated government procurement
contract. This final determination, HQ
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
H243606, was issued under procedures
set forth at 19 CFR Part 177, subpart B,
which implements Title III of the Trade
Agreements Act of 1979, as amended
(19 U.S.C. 2511–18). In the final
determination, CBP concluded that,
based upon the facts presented, the
software build operations performed in
the United States substantially
transform non-TAA country software
modules developed in China. Therefore,
the country of origin of DocAve
Software is the United States for
purposes of U.S. Government
procurement.
Section 177.29, CBP Regulations (19
CFR 177.29), provides that a notice of
final determination shall be published
in the Federal Register within 60 days
of the date the final determination is
issued. Section 177.30, CBP Regulations
(19 CFR 177.30), provides that any
party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR
177.22(d), may seek judicial review of a
final determination within 30 days of
publication of such determination in the
Federal Register.
Dated: December 4, 2013.
Sandra L. Bell,
Executive Director, Regulations and Rulings,
Office of International Trade.
Attachment
HQ H243606
December 4, 2013
Larry Hampel, Esq.
Albert B. Krachman, Esq.
Blank Rome, LLP
Watergate
600 New Hampshire Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20037
RE: Trade Agreements Act; Substantial
Transformation; Country of Origin
of Software
Dear Mr. Hampel and Mr. Krachman:
This is in response to your letter
dated June 24, 2013, requesting a final
determination on behalf of AvePoint,
Inc. (‘‘AvePoint’’), pursuant to subpart B
of part 177 of the U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) Regulations (19
C.F.R. Part 177). Under these
regulations, which implement Title III
of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979
(TAA), as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2511 et
seq.), CBP issues country of origin
advisory rulings and final
determinations as to whether an article
is or would be a product of a designated
country or instrumentality for the
purposes of granting waivers of certain
‘‘Buy American’’ restrictions in U.S. law
or practice for products offered for sale
to the U.S. Government.
This final determination concerns the
country of origin of computer software.
As the U.S. importer of the subject
E:\FR\FM\11DEN1.SGM
11DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75360-75362]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29470]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Customs and Border Protection Bureau
Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning Certain
Ethernet Switches
AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Notice of final determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document provides notice that U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') has issued a final determination concerning the
country of origin of certain Ethernet switches. Based upon the facts
presented, CBP has concluded that Malaysia, where the switches were
assembled, is the country where the last substantial transformation
occurred. Therefore, the country of origin of the switches is Malaysia
for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
DATES: The final determination was issued on December 3, 2013. A copy
of the final determination is attached. Any party-at-interest, as
defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of this final
determination on or before January 10, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather K. Pinnock, Valuation and
Special Programs Branch: (202) 325-0034.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that on December 3,
2013, pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection Regulations (19 CFR part 177, subpart B), CBP issued a final
determination concerning the country of origin of Ethernet switches
which may be offered to the U.S. Government under an undesignated
government procurement contract. This final determination, HQ H241177,
was issued under procedures set forth at 19 CFR part 177, subpart B,
which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 2511-18). In the final determination, CBP concluded
that, based upon the facts presented, the last substantial
transformation took place in Malaysia, where the switches were
assembled. Therefore, the country of origin of the switches is Malaysia
for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
Section 177.29, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.29), provides that a
notice of final determination shall be published in the Federal
Register within 60 days of the date the final determination is issued.
Section 177.30, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.30), provides that any
party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial
review of a final determination within 30 days of publication of such
determination in the Federal Register.
Dated: December 3, 2013.
Sandra L. Bell,
Executive Director, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International
Trade.
Attachment
HQ H241177
December 3, 2013
MAR OT:RR:CTF:VS H241177 HkP
CATEGORY: Origin
Josephine Aiello LeBeau, Esq.
Anne Seymour, Esq.
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC
1700 K Street NW., Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20006-3817
RE: U.S. Government Procurement; Country of Origin of Local Area
Network Switches; Substantial Transformation
Dear Ms. LeBeau and Ms. Seymour:
This is in response to your letter, dated March 13, 2013,
requesting a final determination on behalf of Arista Networks, Inc.
(``Arista''), pursuant to subpart B of part 177 of the U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (``CBP'') Regulations (19 C.F.R. Part 177).
Under these regulations, which implement Title III of the Trade
Agreements Act of 1979 (``TAA''), as amended (19 U.S.C. Sec. 2511
et seq.), CBP issues country of origin advisory rulings and final
determinations as to whether an article is or would be a product of
a designated country or instrumentality for the purposes of granting
waivers of certain ``Buy American'' restrictions in U.S. law or
practice for products offered for sale to the U.S. Government. Your
letter was forwarded to this office by the National Commodity
Specialist Division on April 8, 2013.
This final determination concerns the country of origin of
Arista's 7000, 7100, 7200, series (``7 Series'') local area network
(``LAN'') switches. We note that as a U.S. importer, Arista is a
party-at-interest within the meaning of 19 C.F.R. Sec. 177.22(d)(1)
and is entitled to request this final determination.
FACTS:
Arista plans to import fully functional 7 Series Ethernet
switches from Singapore.\1\ The switches are designed to
interconnect servers and storage appliances in data centers. Each
switch consists of one or more printed circuit board assembly
(``PCBA''), chassis, top cover, power supply, and fans. The switches
operate using Arista's Extensible Operating System
(``EOSTM'') software.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CBP previously issued Headquarters Ruling Letter H175415,
dated October 7, 2011, to Arista concerning the country of origin of
non-functioning 7048, 7050, 7100, 7124, and 7500 series Ethernet
switches imported from China and programmed in the United States
with U.S.-origin software.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arista's EOS software is designed to provide switching
functionality, secure administration, increase reliability, and to
optimize network management. Specifically, EOS software provides the
following capabilities and benefits to Ethernet switches: in-service
software upgrade, software fault containment, fault repair, security
exploit containment, and scalable management interface. According to
your submission, the units imported from Singapore could not
function as network switches without this software, which was
developed in the United States at considerable cost to Arista. Since
2005, more than 140 software engineers have continued to develop the
software and more than 80 percent of Arista's Research and
Development spending has been on EOS software development.
Manufacturing operations are performed in China, Malaysia and
Singapore. Software downloading operations, using U.S.-origin
software, take place only in Singapore.
The following operations occur in China:
The chassis and top cover are manufactured from sheet metal.
The following operations occur in Malaysia:
1. A printed circuit board is populated with various electronic
components to make a PCBA.
2. The PCBA is tested to ensure functionality.
3. The power supply and fans are installed in the chassis.
4. The PCBA is installed in the chassis.
[[Page 75361]]
5. The chassis and top cover are assembled together.
6. The serial numbers of the components are entered into the data
tracking system, and the switch is packaged and shipped to
Singapore.
The following operations occur in Singapore:
1. Custom configuration changes, such as substitution of DC for AC
power supplies and/or installation of optional hardware modules, are
made.
2. U.S.-origin EOSTM software is downloaded onto the
flash memory on the PCBA.
3. The switch is tested, packaged, and prepared for shipping.
The EOS software program dedicates the hardware to its specific
applications and the only reprogramming operations that may be done
are updating the software to a different version.
ISSUE:
What is the country of origin of the Arista's 7 Series Ethernet
switches for purposes of U.S. Government procurement?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Pursuant to Subpart B of Part 177, 19 CFR Sec. 177.21 et seq.,
which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as
amended (19 U.S.C. Sec. 2511 et seq.), CBP issues country of origin
advisory rulings and final determinations as to whether an article
is or would be a product of a designated country or instrumentality
for the purposes of granting waivers of certain ``Buy American''
restrictions in U.S. law or practice for products offered for sale
to the U.S. Government.
Under the rule of origin set forth under 19 U.S.C. Sec.
2518(4)(B):
An article is a product of a country or instrumentality only if
(i) it is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of that country
or instrumentality, or (ii) in the case of an article which consists
in whole or in part of materials from another country or
instrumentality, it has been substantially transformed into a new
and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use
distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was so
transformed.
See also 19 C.F.R. Sec. 177.22(a).
In Data General v. United States, 4 Ct. Int'l Trade 182 (1982),
the court determined that for purposes of determining eligibility
under item 807.00, Tariff Schedules of the United States
(predecessor to subheading 9802.00.80, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States), the programming of a foreign PROM (Programmable
Read-Only Memory chip) in the United States substantially
transformed the PROM into a U.S. article. In programming the
imported PROMs, the U.S. engineers systematically caused various
distinct electronic interconnections to be formed within each
integrated circuit. The programming bestowed upon each circuit its
electronic function, that is, its ``memory'' which could be
retrieved. A distinct physical change was effected in the PROM by
the opening or closing of the fuses, depending on the method of
programming. This physical alteration, not visible to the naked eye,
could be discerned by electronic testing of the PROM. The court
noted that the programs were designed by a U.S. project engineer
with many years of experience in ``designing and building
hardware.'' In addition, the court noted that while replicating the
program pattern from a ``master'' PROM may be a quick one-step
process, the development of the pattern and the production of the
``master'' PROM required much time and expertise. The court noted
that it was undisputed that programming altered the character of a
PROM. The essence of the article, its interconnections or stored
memory, was established by programming. The court concluded that
altering the non-functioning circuitry comprising a PROM through
technological expertise in order to produce a functioning read only
memory device, possessing a desired distinctive circuit pattern, was
no less a ``substantial transformation'' than the manual
interconnection of transistors, resistors and diodes upon a circuit
board creating a similar pattern.
In Texas Instruments v. United States, 681 F.2d 778, 782 (CCPA
1982), the court observed that the substantial transformation issue
is a ``mixed question of technology and customs law.''
In C.S.D. 84-85, 18 Cust. B. & Dec. 1044, CBP stated:
We are of the opinion that the rationale of the court in the
Data General case may be applied in the present case to support the
principle that the essence of an integrated circuit memory storage
device is established by programming; . . . [W]e are of the opinion
that the programming (or reprogramming) of an EPROM results in a new
and different article of commerce which would be considered to be a
product of the country where the programming or reprogramming takes
place.
Accordingly, the programming of a device that defines its use
generally constitutes substantial transformation. See also
Headquarters Ruling Letter (`HQ') 558868, dated February 23, 1995
(programming of SecureID Card substantially transforms the card
because it gives the card its character and use as part of a
security system and the programming is a permanent change that
cannot be undone); HQ 735027, dated September 7, 1993 (programming
blank media (EEPROM) with instructions that allow it to perform
certain functions that prevent piracy of software constitute
substantial transformation); and, HQ 733085, dated July 13, 1990;
but see HQ 732870, dated March 19, 1990 (formatting a blank diskette
does not constitute substantial transformation because it does not
add value, does not involve complex or highly technical operations
and did not create a new or different product); and, HQ 734518,
dated June 28, 1993, (motherboards are not substantially transformed
by the implanting of the central processing unit on the board
because, whereas in Data General use was being assigned to the PROM,
the use of the motherboard had already been determined when the
importer imported it).
You believe that under the manufacturing scenario described in
the FACTS section above, Arista's 7 Series Ethernet switches are
products of Singapore. You argue that without the EOS software, the
units exported from Singapore lack the intelligence to perform as
network switches. In fact, you claim that the EOS software gives the
Malaysian switches their essential character by providing network
switching and routing functionality, management functions, network
performance monitoring, security and access control, and by allowing
interaction with other switches. Further, programming the switches
with the EOS software creates a permanent change in the PCBAs that
cannot be undone by third parties during the normal course of
business. The only reprogramming operation that may be performed
during the normal course of business is either updating the
installed software or entering licensing keys that enable the
activation of additional EOS software features.
In support of your position, you make a two-pronged argument.
The first is that the switches are substantially transformed by
programming. As indicated above, CBP has previously found that
programming may effect a substantial transformation.
The second prong of your argument is that, when there are
multiple manufacturing locations, the country of origin is the
country where the last substantial transformation occurs. In this
case, you claim that programming is the last substantial
transformation that the switches undergo, hence, the country of
origin is Singapore. You cite HQ H170315 (July 28, 2011) and HQ
H203555 (April 23, 2012) as support.
HQ H203555 concerned the country of origin of oscilloscopes made
according to five possible manufacturing scenarios. Regardless of
the scenario, components were assembled into subassemblies, which
were then made into complete oscilloscopes, in Singapore. Boards
important to the function of the oscilloscopes, incorporated into
the subassemblies in Singapore, were assembled in Malaysia only or
in Malaysia and Singapore. In all cases, U.S.-origin firmware was
downloaded onto the fully assembled oscilloscopes in Singapore. For
all scenarios, CBP found that there were three countries where
programming and/or assembly operations took place, the last of which
was Singapore. However, no one country's operations dominated the
manufacturing operations of the oscilloscopes. The boards assembled
in Malaysia were important to the function of the oscilloscopes, as
was the U.S. firmware and software used to program the oscilloscopes
in Singapore. Further, the assembly in Singapore completed the
oscilloscopes. Therefore, the last substantial transformation
occurred in Singapore, which was the country of origin for
procurement purposes.
HQ H170315 concerned the country of origin of satellite
telephones. CBP was asked to consider six scenarios involving the
manufacture of PCBs in one country and the programming of the PCBs
with second country software either in the first country or in a
third country where the phones were assembled. In scenarios I, II,
and VI, CBP found that the country of origin of the phones was
Malaysia because, as the country where the assembly and programming
of the boards
[[Page 75362]]
which conveyed the essential character of the phones took place,
that was the place where the last substantial transformation
occurred. Moreover, subsequent assembly operations in Singapore did
not substantially transform the programmed boards into a new and
different article. In scenarios III through V, the boards were
assembled in Malaysia or Malaysia and Singapore. Handset programming
took place wholly, or in part, in Singapore, where the phones were
also assembled to completion. For those scenarios, CBP found that
the country of origin of the phones was Singapore.
We note that none of the rulings cited in Arista's submission
(some discussed above) are instructive because they do not address
situations in which assembly is performed in one country and
software is developed in a second country and downloaded in a third
country. The rulings refer to situations in which assembly and
software downloading are performed in one country using programs
developed in the same or another country, or to situations in which
assembly is performed in one country and downloading is performed in
another country using programs developed in the same country in
which the software is downloaded onto the article.
In this case, the switches are assembled to completion in
Malaysia and then shipped to Singapore, where EOS software developed
in the United States at significant cost to Arista and over many
years is downloaded onto them. It is claimed that the U.S.-origin
EOS software enables the imported switches to interact with other
network switches through network switching and routing, and allows
for the management of functions such as network performance
monitoring and security and access control; without this software,
the imported devices could not function as Ethernet switches.
We find that the software downloading performed in Singapore
does not amount to programming. Programming involves writing,
testing and implementing code necessary to make a computer function
in a certain way. See Data General supra. See also ``computer
program'', Encyclop[aelig]dia Britannica (2013), (9/19/2013) https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/130654/computer-program, which
explains, in part, that ``a program is prepared by first formulating
a task and then expressing it in an appropriate computer language,
presumably one suited to the application.''
While the programming occurs in the U.S., the downloading occurs
in Singapore. Given these facts, we find that the country where the
last substantial transformation occurs is Malaysia, that is, where
the major assembly processes are performed. The country of origin
for purposes of U.S. Government procurement is Malaysia.
HOLDING:
Based on the facts provided, the last substantial transformation
occurs in Malaysia. As such, the switches will be considered
products of Malaysia for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
Notice of this final determination will be given in the Federal
Register, as required by 19 CFR Sec. 177.29. Any party-at-interest
other than the party which requested this final determination may
request, pursuant to 19 CFR Sec. 177.31, that CBP reexamine the
matter anew and issue a new final determination. Pursuant to 19 CFR
Sec. 177.30, any party-at-interest may, within 30 days of
publication of the Federal Register Notice referenced above, seek
judicial review of this final determination before the Court of
International Trade.
Sincerely,
Sandra L. Bell,
Executive Director, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International
Trade.
[FR Doc. 2013-29470 Filed 12-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P