## Facts

- The Buy American Act (BAA) creates preferences for domestic products in U.S. government procurement.
- The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (TAA) modifies procurement preferences by extending favorable treatment to products of certain “designated” foreign countries that provide reciprocal treatment to U.S. products.
- Under the TAA, an article is treated as a product of a country for procurement purposes if it is wholly produced there or is “substantially transformed” there into a new and different article of commerce.
- Section 305(b)(1) of the TAA provides a process for interested parties to request a country-of-origin determination from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for procurement eligibility.
- Nukote International refurbished used printer cartridges and requested a TAA country-of-origin determination from CBP covering those refurbished cartridges.
- CBP concluded Nukote’s refurbishing operations performed in the United States did not substantially transform the cartridges into products of the United States for procurement purposes.
- CBP’s determination did not identify an alternative country of origin for the cartridges and did not state whether the cartridges qualified as products of a designated foreign country.
- Xerox Corporation, a competitor in the printer-cartridge market for government procurement, brought suit in the Court of International Trade challenging CBP’s determination and seeking relief that would treat Nukote’s refurbished cartridges as U.S.-origin for procurement purposes.
- The United States moved to dismiss, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction and/or that Xerox failed to state a claim.

## Issues

1. Whether the Court of International Trade had subject-matter jurisdiction to review CBP’s final TAA § 305(b)(1) country-of-origin determination affecting government procurement.
2. Whether Xerox, as a competitor affected by the procurement consequences of the ruling, had a sufficient legal interest to bring the challenge.
3. Whether Xerox stated a plausible claim that CBP acted unlawfully by issuing an incomplete procurement origin determination—finding no U.S. substantial transformation but not identifying any country of origin or designated-country status.

## Decision

- The court denied the government’s motion to dismiss.
- The court held that CBP’s TAA § 305(b)(1) final determination was the type of agency action the Court of International Trade may review under its procurement-origin jurisdiction.
- The court concluded Xerox adequately alleged a concrete competitive injury tied to the procurement consequences of the challenged determination, supporting its ability to sue.
- The court ruled that Xerox’s allegations—centered on CBP’s failure to provide a complete country-of-origin determination as contemplated by the TAA and CBP’s regulations—were sufficient at the pleading stage to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- The Court of International Trade has exclusive jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(e) to review CBP final determinations issued under TAA § 305(b)(1) concerning country of origin for U.S. government procurement.
- For TAA procurement purposes, origin may be based on substantial transformation—whether processing in a country results in a new and different article of commerce.
- When CBP acts under TAA § 305(b)(1) and its implementing regulations, a country-of-origin decision must be stated in a form that procurement officials can apply; a ruling that rejects U.S. origin without identifying any origin may be challenged as legally deficient.
- On a motion to dismiss, the court evaluates whether the complaint plausibly alleges entitlement to relief, not whether the plaintiff has proven substantial transformation on the merits.

## Conclusion

The Court of International Trade allowed Xerox’s challenge to go forward by denying the government’s motion to dismiss, holding that CBP’s TAA procurement country-of-origin determination for Nukote’s refurbished cartridges was reviewable and that Xerox plausibly alleged CBP’s ruling was defective because it denied U.S. origin without providing a complete, usable origin determination under the TAA framework.


Xerox Corporation v. United States, 753 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (2011)