HQ 0734216 - Country of origin marking on matching belts sold together with dresses that are made of the same fabric and the same solid color as the dresses, sets; HQ 729594, HQ 733964, HQ 733099 - 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 > 1993 HQ Rulings > HQ 0733760 - HQ 0734297 > HQ 0734216

HQ 734216

January 6, 1992

Mar-2-05 CO:R:C:V 734216 RSD

CATEGORY: MARKING

Robert D. Stang, Esq.
Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz & Silverman 12 East 49th Street
New York, New York 10017

RE: Country of origin marking on matching belts sold together with dresses that are made of the same fabric and the same solid color as the dresses, sets; HQ 729594, HQ 733964, HQ 733099

Dear Mr. Stang:

This is in response to your letter of March 13, 1991, requesting a binding ruling on behalf of your client, Lane Bryant Fifth Avenue (Lane Bryant), regarding the country origin marking of belts sold with polyester knit dresses. A sample of the dress and belt were submitted for our consideration.

FACTS:

Lane Bryant requests a ruling on the marking of a belt which is imported and retailed as a commercial unit with a dress. The belt and dress are referenced under Style No. 5-4659-8. The dress is made from a purple polyester knit fabric. At the waistband there are two belt loops. The fiber content of the dress is 100% polyester. The dress is marked to indicate that its country of origin is Sri Lanka by use of a label sewn in the neck area of the garment. The sample belt accompanying the dress is made from the same purple polyester knit fabric as the dress and is backed with black plastic. The sample belt has five metal eyelets in which to fasten the belt buckle. The fabric and plastic components are cut and assembled in Taiwan before being shipped to Sri Lanka. Based on an examination of the belt and the dress, it is clear that the belt is intended to be worn exclusively with the dress.

You ask the four following questions:

1. What is the country of origin of the belt for U.S. Customs purposes?

2. Assuming that the dress is properly marked with its country of origin, must the belt, which is imported and retailed with the dress as a single commercial unit, also be marked with its country of origin? 3. If the belt must be marked with its country of origin, would it be sufficient to use a stick-on label that would reach the ultimate consumer or must the belt be embossed or stamped with the proper information?

4. Would the answer to question no. 3 change if the belt was not constructed of fabric and plastic, but was constructed of a single component (i.e., 100% fabric, plastic or leather)?

ISSUE:

Does the sample purple belt made of the same fabric, and the same solid purple color as the dress with which it is imported and sold have to be separately marked to indicate its own country of origin?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Under Section 304, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304), every article of foreign origin imported into the United States, unless excepted, shall be marked in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly, and permanently as the nature of the article will permit in such manner as to indicate to an ultimate purchaser in the United States the English name of the country of origin of the article. Part 134, Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 134), implements the country of origin marking requirements and the exceptions of 19 U.S.C. 1304. Section 134.1(b), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.1(b)), defines "country of origin" as the country of manufacture, production or growth of any article of foreign origin entering the U.S. Further work or material added to an article in another country must effect a substantial transformation in order to render such other country the "country of origin" within the meaning of the marking laws and regulations. The case of U.S. v. Gibson-Thomsen Co., Inc., 27 C.C.P.A. 267 (C.A.D. 98) (1940), provides that an article used in manufacture which results in an article having a name, character or use differing from that of the constituent article will be considered substantially transformed and that the manufacturer or processor will be considered the ultimate purchaser of the constituent materials.

In T.D. 91-7, January 16, 1991, Customs indicated that for purposes of 19 U.S.C. 1304, the relevant inquiry regarding the marking of the material or components in a collection of goods, such as a dress and a belt, is whether such items have been substantially transformed as result of their inclusion in the set, mixture, or composite good. T.D. 91-7 also provides that in certain circumstances the marking of every item in the collection of goods may not be consistent with the purpose of the marking statute, or may be impractical and/or undesirable. This may be because one or more items in the collection are relatively insignificant and would have no influence on the purchasing decision, because the items in the collection are too numerous making it impractical to specify the country of origin of each item, or for various other reasons. Therefore, the decision states that Customs will continue to employ a "common sense" approach to determine the marking requirements applicable to articles which comprise a collection of goods.

In this case, combining the belt with the dress in Sri Lanka does not substantially transform the belt, and its country of origin would remain Taiwan, the country where the fabric and the plastic components for the belt are cut and assembled. However, as set forth below, we find that the belt would have minimal influence on the purchasing decision and is not required to be marked with its country of origin.

In HQ 729594, August 12, 1986, Customs used a common sense approach in determining that belts imported and sold together with dresses made of the same fabric and design, and intended to be worn exclusively with the dresses, do not have to be marked to indicate their own country of origin as long as the dresses are properly marked. In that case, the belts and the dresses were made in different countries. Similarly in HQ 733099, May 30, 1990, a common sense approach was used in determining that a scarf and tie made from the same fabric and design as a blouse, with which it was imported and sold, did not have to be separately marked. In that case, the blouse as well as the scarf and tie were products of the Dominican Republic. Customs concluded that these accessories would have a minimal impact on the final purchasing decision.

Similarly in the present case, because the sample belt is made of the same fabric as the dress with which it is imported and sold, and is meant to be exclusively worn with the dress, we find that the belt would have minimal influence on the purchasing decision and that it does not have to be separately marked to indicate its country of origin. Of course, the dress must be properly marked with its country of origin. This is the case whether or not the belt and dress are made in the same country.

You should be aware that Customs has ruled that certain belts that are not made of the same fabric as the garment to which they are attached and which are not designed to be exclusively worn with the garment must be individually marked to indicate their country of origin. See HQ 733964, April 2, 1991. However, if the garment and the belt are manufactured in the same country separate marking for the belt is not required. See HQ 734222, December 9, 1991.

Since the sample belt does not have to be individually marked to indicate its country of origin, the other questions you ask are moot.

HOLDING:

The sample belt which is made of the same fabric, with the same solid purple color and intended to be worn exclusively with the dress which it is imported and sold with does not have to be separately marked to indicate its country of origin.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director

Previous Ruling Next Ruling