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 0734312 - HQ 0734544 > HQ 0734481

Previous Ruling Next Ruling



HQ 734481


August 19, 1992

MAR-2-05 CO:R:V:C 734481 AT

CATEGORY: MARKING

Mr. David Langhammer
President
Quality Gold of Cincinnati
P.O. Box 62290
Cincinnati, Ohio 45262

RE: Country of origin marking requirements for imported gold jewelry; conspicuous; hang tags; 19 CFR 134.41; 19 CFR 134.44; C.S.D. 79-379 (April 9, 1979); HQ 709757

Dear Mr. Langhammer:

This is in response to your letter of January 23, 1992, requesting a country of origin ruling regarding imported gold chain jewelry. Six samples of 14kt gold chain were submitted with your letter. We regret the delay in responding.

FACTS:

You state that your company imports 14kt gold chains into the U.S. from either Italy or Malta. All of the sample gold chains are marked (engraved) with the country of origin in tiny letters on the endcaps of the chain near the clasp. Other markings such as "14kt" and "Silmar" (trademark) also appear on the chains near the country of origin marking. You also state that U.S. Customs Ports in Cincinnati and Cleveland have advised your company that the country of origin marking on these sample chains are not acceptable because the lettering is too small and additional hang tags must be attached to each chain to indicate the country of origin. However, you claim that other Customs ports, such as, Los Angeles and New York have not required hang tags to be attached but have allowed this method of marking as being acceptable country of origin marking. Based on these claims, you assert that the gold chains are properly marked with the country of origin and additional hang tags are not required.

ISSUE:

Does the country of origin marking on the sample gold chains, as described above, satisfy the marking requirements set forth in Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304), provides that, unless excepted, every article of foreign origin imported into the U.S. 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 the ultimate purchaser in the U.S. the English name of the country of origin of the article. Congressional intent in enacting 19 U.S.C. 1304 was that the ultimate purchaser should be able to know by an inspection of the marking on the imported goods the country of which the goods is the product. "The evident purpose is to mark the goods so that at the time of purchase the ultimate purchaser may, by knowing where the goods were produced, be able to buy or refuse to buy them, if such marking should influence his will." United States v.Friedlaender & Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 297 at 302 (1940).

Part 134, Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 134), implements the country of origin marking requirements and exceptions of 19 U.S.C. 1304. Section 134.1(d), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.1(d)), defines the ultimate purchaser as generally the last person in the U.S. who will receive the article in the form in which it was imported. In this case the ultimate purchaser of the gold chain is the purchaser at retail. Section 134.41, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.41), requires that the ultimate purchaser must be able to find the country of origin marking easily and read it without strain.

In C.S.D. 79-47 (August 7, 1978), Customs ruled that marking the country of origin by means of tiny letters stamped on a flat spacer ring attached between the clasp and the chain was not conspicuous enough to indicate the country of origin of the imported chain because the marking could not be easily found by an ultimate purchaser looking at the jewelry. In C.S.D. 79-379 (April 9, 1979), Customs ruled that the country of origin marking of small chain jewelry by means of tiny lettering engraved on flat chain links or on the flat spacer ring between the clasp and the chain were not acceptable methods of marking because the marking was not legible or conspicuous, and could not be read without strain by an ultimate purchaser.

Similarly, in this case, we find that the marking on the sample gold chains is not an acceptable country of origin marking. The marking on the chain is not easy to find upon a casual examination and can only be noticed by a careful inspection of the chain. Also, the lettering is so small that it is neither easy to read nor conspicuous to an ultimate purchaser looking at the jewelry. Accordingly, the gold chains must be marked with the country of origin by some other method. Marking each gold chain by attaching a hang tag is an acceptable method of marking the country of origin, provided that the tags are affixed in a conspicuous place and so securely that, unless deliberately removed, they will remain on the article until it reaches the ultimate purchaser. See, 19 CFR 134.44.

In response to informal inquiries at various ports, it has not been determined that the marking requirements for the subject articles, gold chains, are being inconsistently enforced by Customs ports. However, our response contained in this ruling will be disseminated to Customs ports of entry to help assure uniformity.

HOLDING:

The sample 14kt gold chains marked with the country of origin by means of engraving tiny letters on the endcaps of the chain near the clasp are not conspicuously marked and do not satisfy the country of origin marking requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1304 and 19 CFR Part 134. Therefore, in order to satisfy the country of origin marking requirements other methods of marking must be used. Marking the gold chains by affixing hang tags is an acceptable method of marking the country origin provided that the tags are affixed in a conspicuous place and so securely that, unless deliberately removed, they will remain on the articles until they reach the ultimate purchaser (19 CFR 134.44).

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division

Previous Ruling Next Ruling