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 0734500

Previous Ruling Next Ruling



HQ 734500


June 25, 1992

MAR-2-05 CO:R:C:V 734500 KR

CATEGORY: MARKING

Mr. Harold Dichter
Leyden Customs Expediters, Inc.
99 Hudson Street
New York, NY 10048

RE: Country of origin marking of sandal footwear; conspicuous; permanent; adhesive labels; stickers; marking on bottom.

Dear Mr. Dichter:

This is in response to your letter dated January 8, 1992, and forwarded to Headquarters on February 5, 1992, and received at Headquarters on February 13, 1992, requesting a country of origin marking ruling on a sandal footwear which you wish to import from Taiwan. You submitted a sample sandal for examination.

FACTS:

You state that you wish to import sandals. In a conversation on June 16, 1992, you stated that the sandals may be made in either Korea or Taiwan, but the decision has not been made as to which. For purposes of this ruling, it is assumed that Taiwan is the country of origin because you have attached an adhesive label to the bottom of the sandal that says "TAIWAN R.O.C." The label is 1/2 inch long. The letters on the label are in blue ink and are approximately 4.5 point print. (A point is approximately .01384 inch or 1/72 of an inch). The letter "T" in the "TAIWAN" on the label was mostly missing, or faded. The label on the sample is partially peeling off.

ISSUE:

Whether the proposed country of origin marking of an adhesive label on the bottom of the submitted sample sandal satisfies the requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1304 and 19 CFR Part 134?

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. The Court of International Trade stated in Koru North America v. United States, 701 F. Supp. 229, 12 CIT 1120 (CIT 1988), that "in ascertaining what constitutes the country of origin under the marking statute, a court must look at the sense in which the term is used in the statute, giving reference to the purpose of the particular legislation involved. The purpose of the marking statute is outlined in United States v. Frielaender & Co., 27 CCPA 297 at 302, C.A.D. 104 (1940), where the court stated that: "Congress intended 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."

Part 134, Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 134), implements the country of origin marking requirements and exceptions of 19 U.S.C. 1304. Section 134.41(b), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.41(b), mandates that the ultimate purchaser in the U.S. must be able to find the marking easily and read it without strain. 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 instance, the ultimate purchaser of the sandal is the retail consumer because the retail consumer is the last person in the U.S. to receive the imported merchandise (sandal) in the form in which it is imported.

With regard to the permanency of a marking, 19 CFR 134.41(a), provides that as a general rule marking requirements are best met by marking worked into the article at the time of manufacture. For example, its suggested that the country of origin on metal articles be die sunk, molded in or etched. However, 19 CFR 134.44 provides that except for articles which are the subject of a ruling by the Commissioner of Customs or those articles classifiable in an item number specified in 19 CFR 134.43, any marking that is sufficiently permanent so that it will remain on the article until it reaches the ultimate purchaser unless deliberately removed is acceptable. If paper stickers or pressure sensitive labels are used, they must be affixed in a conspicuous place and so securely that unless deliberately removed they will remain on the article while it is in storage or on display and until it is delivered to the ultimate purchaser. (19 CFR 134.44(b)). See also, 19 CFR 134.41.

Customs has previously ruled in HQ 731089 (February 13, 1989) and HQ 734267 (December 11, 1991), that country of origin markings on footwear (moccasin and beach sandal) by means of paper or plastic adhesive labels was acceptable provided the label was conspicuous, legible and permanently placed on the footwear. In those rulings Customs stated that such factors as the type of surface on which the label was attached to and whether the label could withstand normal handling and remain on the shoe until it reached the ultimate purchaser should be considered in determining the permanency of the label.

In this case, we find that the country of origin label is not conspicuous. Although a country of origin marking of the bottom of footwear may be acceptable, it must be easy to read. In this case, because the label is quite small and is not readily apparent, we find that it is not conspicuous. We suggest that you increase the size of the label and the print size so that the country is easy to find and easy to read. Further, we find that the label is neither permanent nor legible. The "T" in "TAIWAN" was faded or misprinted and, therefore, not legible. The label was also too easily removed from the sandal, in fact, as received the label was partially peeling off on one side. The adhesive must be a stronger adhesive or placed so that it will not come off through normal handling of the sandal. Alternatively, another more permanent method should be used.

HOLDING:

Based on the above considerations and review of the submitted sandal, we find that the country of origin marking on the submitted sandal is not permanent or conspicuous and, therefore, not in compliance with 19 U.S.C. 1304 and 19 CFR Part 134.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division


Previous Ruling Next Ruling