HQ 0731827 - Country of origin marking requirements applicable to pipes and pipe fittings - United States International Trade Commision Rulings

United States International Trade Commision Rulings And Harmonized Tariff Schedule

faqs.org Rulings By Number Rulings By Category Tariff Numbers

faqs.org > Rulings and Tariffs Home > Rulings By Number > 1991 HQ Rulings > HQ 0731024 - HQ 0732487 > HQ 0731827

HQ 731827

June 28, 1989

MAR-2-05 CO:R:C:V 731827

CATEGORY: MARKING

Allan H. Kamnitz, Esq.
Sharretts, Paley, Carter & Blauvelt, P.C. 80 Broad Street
New York, New York 10004

RE: Country of origin marking requirements applicable to pipes and pipe fittings

Dear Mr. Kamnitz:

This is in reply to your letters of October 12, 1988, and January 24, 1989, concerning the country of origin marking requirements applicable to pipes and pipe fittings.

FACTS:

According to your submission, your client is an importer of pipes and pipe fittings of cast iron and steel. Such products are required to be marked by one of four required methods: die stamping, cast-in-mold lettering, etching or engraving.

Your client has been importing pipe and pipe fittings from suppliers using an "electro-chemical etching process" to comply with marking requirements. These suppliers use "Lectroetch" machines and you conveyed this description of the machines' functioning:

The "Lectroetch" consists of a marking head which con- tains a felt pad soaked in a electrolyte to which a polyester stencil is fitted. The stencil permits the electrolyte solution to seep through the apertures formed by the lettering on the stencil. Upon the application of a low-voltage current, an electro- chemical reaction results in a black oxide etched marking. A cleaning solution is then applied to neutralize surplus electrolyte that would otherwise cause staining by corrosion. This method of marking results in a clearly legible permanent marking, in- scribed into a metal surface, which does not wipe or rub off by handling and cannot be removed by solvent.

You indicate that your client recently received some marking notices based on a determination by Customs officers that the marking used was not permanent. We direct your attention to { 177.11(b)(2), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 177.11(b)(2)), concerning requests for internal advice, and { 174.11, Customs

Regulations (19 CFR 174.11), concerning protests, for any action you may wish to pursue regarding those notices. We can, however, issue a ruling on the sufficiency of the marking to be applied prospectively.

ISSUE:

Is the sample pipe marked by one of the required methods for marking pipes and fittings of iron or steel, in particular, is the pipe marked by etching?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304), requires that, unless excepted, every article of foreign origin (or its container) imported into the United States shall be marked in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly and permanently as the nature of the article (or container) will permit, in such a manner as to indicate to an ultimate purchaser in the United States the English name of the country of origin of the article.

Section 207 of the Trade and Tariff Act of 1984, amended 19 U.S.C. 1304 by requiring that all imported pipe of iron, steel or stainless steel, and pipe fittings of steel, stainless steel, chrome-moly steel or cast and malleable iron be permanently marked to indicate their country of origin by means of die stamping, cast-in-mold lettering, etching or engraving. Subparagraph (c)(2) of 19 U.S.C. 1304 provides however that if it would be technically or commercially infeasible to use one of the four listed methods of marking, "the article may be marked by an equally permanent method of marking such as paint stenciling or, in the case of small diameter pipe, tube, and fittings, by tagging the containers or bundles."

After consultation with the Customs laboratory, it is the opinion of this office that the sample pipe is not marked by one of the four required methods. Die stamping, cast-in-mold lettering and engraving were not at issue. The laboratory analysis of the sample determined that the visual black letters were easily removed by rubbing with the fingers or handling. Further, the area below the removed black letters did not show any evidence of markings to the unaided eye or when using a light microscope. Although it is not the normal policy of this office to include copies of laboratory reports with ruling letters, since this ruling is predicated on, not merely supported by, the laboratory findings, a copy is enclosed for your information as you requested.

In regard to the request made on behalf of the importer that a "grace period" be granted while alternative marking methods are explored, you should contact local Customs officials directly concerning this matter.

HOLDING:

The sample pipe submitted to this is not marked by one of the four methods required of pipes and fittings of iron or steel, i.e., it was not marked by die stamping, cast-in-mold lettering, etching or engraving.

Sincerely,

Marvin M. Amernick
Chief, Value, Special Programs

Previous Ruling Next Ruling