HQ 561878 - Country of origin marking requirements applicable to textile bows formed and tied in China from fabrics woven in Taiwan; 19 CFR 134.36 - 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 > 2002 HQ Rulings > HQ 561827 - HQ 562175 > HQ 561878

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 561878

March 22, 2002

MAR-05 RR:CR:SM 561878 KKV

CATEGORY: MARKING

Mr. John M. Peterson
Neville, Peterson & Williams
80 Broad Street
34th Floor
New York, NY 10004

RE: Country of origin marking requirements applicable to textile bows formed and tied in China from fabrics woven in Taiwan; 19 CFR 134.36

Dear Mr. Peterson:

This is in response to your letter dated September 11, 2000, on behalf of Berwick Industries, Inc., which requests a binding ruling regarding the country of origin and marking requirements applicable to textile bows formed and tied in China from fabric woven in Taiwan. A sample has been provided for our examination. We regret the delay in responding.

FACTS:

We are informed that Berwick Industries, Inc., will import certain hand-tied bows which are made from spools of narrow woven fabric (ribbon) which is formed in Taiwan by weaving. The ribbons are highly decorated, with wire sewn into the ribbon to provide support and flexibility. Spools of the Taiwanese-origin ribbon are sent to the Peoples’ Republic of China, where the ribbon is cut, formed and tied to form bows through a series of folds and twists which are intricately tied together.

You state that your client has consulted the applicable rules of origin and has concluded that the bows are a product of Taiwan and may be correctly marked, “Made in Taiwan.” In the alternative, you inquire whether the finished articles may be marked with the phrase “Product of Taiwan, Assembled in China” or “Woven in Taiwan, Assembled in China.”

Upon receipt, your submission was forwarded to the Textiles Branch, Office of Regulations and Rulings, which concurs with your conclusion that the articles in question are classifiable under subheading 6307.90, HTSUS, and that the correct country of origin of the articles is Taiwan pursuant to the rules of origin for textile and apparel products set forth in 19 CFR 102.21. Therefore, this ruling will address only your inquiry concerning how the bows should be marked.

ISSUE:

Whether the proposed country of origin marking for textile bows assembled in China from ribbon woven in Taiwan is acceptable for purposes of 19 U.S.C. 1304.

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 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 the ultimate purchaser in the United States the English name of the country of origin of the article. By enacting 19 U.S.C. 1304, Congress intended to ensure that the ultimate purchaser would be able to know by inspecting the marking on the imported goods the country of which the goods are 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, 302 C.A.D. 104 (1940).

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 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 the ultimate purchaser in the United States the English name of the country of origin of the article. By enacting 19 U.S.C. 1304, Congress intended to ensure that the ultimate purchaser would be able to know by inspecting the marking on the imported goods the country of which the goods are 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, 302 C.A.D. 104 (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 134.46, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.46) contains more restrictive marking requirements designed to alleviate the possibility of an ultimate purchaser being misled with regard to the country of origin of an imported article, if such article or its container includes language which may suggest a U.S. origin (or other foreign locality not the correct country of origin). Specifically, 19 CFR 134.46 requires that, in instances where the name of any city or locality in the U.S., or the name of any foreign country or locality other than the name of the country or locality in which the article was manufactured or produced, appears on an imported article or its container, there shall appear, legibly and permanently, in close proximity to such words, letters or name, and in at least a comparable size, the name of the country of origin preceded by “Made in,” “Product of,” or other words of similar meaning. Customs has ruled that in order to satisfy the close proximity requirement, the country of origin marking must appear on the same side(s) or surface(s) in which the name of the locality other than the country of origin appears (See Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 708994, dated April 24, 1978).

In Customs Service Decision (C.S.D.) 90-31, dated December 20, 1989, Customs held that under certain conditions, geographic names appearing in connection with imported articles do not necessarily trigger the requirements of 19 CFR 134.46 if the context in which the names are used is such that confusion by the ultimate purchaser regarding country of origin is unlikely. In that decision, Customs cited to several rulings including HQ 732329, dated July 12, 1989, (address on a warranty card did not pose a risk of confusion to ultimate purchasers) and HQ 732816, dated November 24, 1989, (address printed on display ticket was provided to assist customer in the event of questions concerning guarantees) where it was decided that the context in which the names and addresses were used was such that confusion regarding country of origin was not conceivable.

Here, however, the non-origin geographical reference to China on the proposed markings is not provided in the context of warranty information or as a point of contact for customer service concerns, etc., but as a locality in which a portion of the manufacturing process takes place, making the possibility of confusion regarding the origin of the product more likely, triggering the applicability of the special marking requirements of 19 CFR 134.46. Moreover, the likelihood of confusion created by the proposed markings, “Product of Taiwan, Assembled in China” or “Woven in Taiwan, Assembled in China” is further compounded by the provision in 19 CFR 134.43(e), where Customs has established that the phrase “Assembled in” is synonymous with “Made in” or “Product of” as an indicator of origin for goods produced as a result of an assembly operation and the country of origin of the article is determined to be the country of assembly

We note that in this particular instance, while the finished bows are produced as a result of an assembly operation, by operation of the textile rules of origin, the country of origin is not the country of assembly (China) but the country of origin of the fabric ribbon (Taiwan). Nevertheless, because Customs has determined that the phrase “Assembled in” is permissible as an indicator of origin in certain circumstances, its use in the proposed markings “Product of Taiwan, Assembled in China” or “Woven in Taiwan, Assembled in China” create confusion as to the origin of the article and are unacceptable for purposes of 19 U.S.C. 1304. However, should the importer wish to disclose the Chinese processing performed on the bows, we find that the phrase “Made in Taiwan, Finished in China” or “Product of Taiwan, Tied in China” would be acceptable for purposes of 19 U.S.C. 1304 and 19 CFR 134.46.

HOLDING:

Because the reference to China” is likely to create confusion regarding the origin of textile bows made from Taiwanese-origin fabric ribbon, the special marking requirements of 19 CFR 134.46 are triggered.

Because Customs has determined that the phrase “Assembled in” is permissible as an indicator of origin in certain circumstances, its use in the proposed markings “Product of Taiwan, Assembled in China” or “Woven in Taiwan, Assembled in China” create confusion as to the origin of the article and are unacceptable for purposes of 19 U.S.C. 1304. However, should the importer wish to disclose the Chinese processing performed on the bows, we find that the phrase “Made in Taiwan, Finished in China” or “Product of Taiwan, Tied in China” would be acceptable for purposes of 19 U.S.C. 1304 and 19 CFR 134.46.

A copy of this ruling letter should be attached to the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is entered. If the documents have been
filed without a copy, this ruling should be brought to the attention of the Customs officer handling the transaction.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director
Tariff Classification and
Appeals Division

Previous Ruling Next Ruling