MAR-2-05 CO:R:C:V 732809 NL
Richard G. Seley
Rudolph Miles & Sons, Inc.
4950 Gateway East, P.O. Box 144
El Paso, Texas 79942
RE: U.S.- Origin Corrugated Shipping Cartons Bearing Box Makers'
Certificates
Dear Mr. Seley:
This is in response to your letter of October 10, 1989, in
which you request a ruling that the Box Maker's Certificate which
appears on U.S.- origin corrugated cartons does not trigger the
country of origin marking requirements of section 134.46, Customs
Regulations (19 CFR 134.46).
FACTS:
Your firm represents companies which import articles from
Mexico in corrugated shipping cartons manufactured in the U.S.
Pursuant to U.S. government regulations such cartons are required
when used in interstate commerce to display a Box Maker's
Certificate (BMC). A sample BMC was submitted.
As required under tariffs submitted for approval by the
Interstate Commerce Commission for rail and motor freight
transportation (known as Rule 41 and Item 222 respectively) the
BMC lists the name of the manufacturer, the performance
characteristics of the box, and the city and state of the
manufacturer. Within the medallion format of the BMC the words,
"BOX CERTIFICATE" clearly identify the BMC as referring only to
the box. Rule 41 and Item 222 specify that the BMC shall be
displayed on the long panel of the bottom of the carton when made
up.
You state that the purpose of the BMC is to provide the
performance characteristics of the carton for the benefit of
shippers and carriers, and has no other relevance to the shipper,
manufacturer, consignee, or product contained in it.
You express concern, however, that the presence of the city
-2-
and state name on the BMC might be interpreted by Customs field
offices as triggering the requirements of 19 CFR 134.46. In
particular, you identify T.D. 86-129, 20 Customs Bulletin 380
(June 26, 1986), a policy statement relating to shoe boxes, as a
possible basis for concluding that the BMC triggers 19 CFR
134.46 for the subject cartons. T.D. 86-129 specified that no
shoe box would be treated as properly marked if the name of a
country or locality other than the country of origin appears
anywhere on the shoe box in any context, unless the name of the
country of origin, preceded by the words "Made in" or "Product
of" appears on the same panel as the name or locality other than
the country of origin.
You state that this question has not been raised previously
by Customs, and that your clients have not received any marking
notices.
ISSUE:
Does 19 CFR 134.46 require that if the BMC appears on the
bottom of a corrugated shipping carton, the name of the country
of origin of the articles imported in the box must appear in
close proximity to the BMC?
LAW & 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 (or its container) 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. Part 134,
Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 134), implements the country of
origin marking requirements and exceptions of 19 U.S.C. 1304.
To prevent confusion and possible deception of ultimate
purchasers, 19 CFR 134.46 requires that in any case in which the
name of a city, locality or country other than the country of
origin of the article appears on the article or its container,
the name of the country of origin, preceded by the words "Made
in" or "Product of", shall appear in close proximity and in
lettering of at least comparable size.
After consideration of the sample BMC, a review of the
applicable precedents, and taking into account the purposes of 19
U.S.C. 1304 and 19 CFR 134.46, it is our opinion that the U.S.
locality and state names on the BMC do not present any
possibility of confusion to the ultimate purchaser of an article
imported in a carton bearing a BMC. Consequently, the presence
of a BMC on a corrugated shipping carton does not activate the
requirements of 19 U.S.C. 134.46.
-3-
The location of the BMC on the bottom of the carton places
it at a significant distance from the view of an ultimate
purchaser (if he were ever to see the carton at all), such that
the information on the BMC would be highly unlikely to influence
any purchasing decisions. See, United States v. Friedlaender &
Co., 27 CCPA 297, 302, C.A.D. 104 (1940) (stating that the
purpose of the marking statute is to permit the ultimate
purchaser to exercise choice on the basis of the country of
origin of the article). The self-contained medallion-style
design of the BMC itself, together with the words "BOX
CERTIFICATE" makes it unmistakable that the BMC refers to the box
and not to any articles which it might contain. It is also
worthy of note that all the information printed on the BMC is in
the English language. In sum, we do not view the BMC as posing
any conflict either with statutory requirements or with the
statutory purpose.
In several recent rulings we have indicated that geographic
names appearing in connection with imported articles do not
necessarily trigger the requirements of 19 CFR 134.46. In HQ
732329 (July 29, 1989) we ruled that an address on a warranty
card did not pose a risk of confusion or deception to ultimate
purchasers. Similarly, in HQ 732816 (November 24, 1989), we
ruled that an address printed on the back of a display ticket
giving a customer a place to direct questions and guarantee
problems created no risk of confusion or deception. The basis of
both these rulings was that while the names and addresses, taken
alone, would appear to be the kinds of potentially confusing
information addressed by 19 CFR 134.46, their context was such
that no confusion as to country of origin was conceivable.
In our opinion the BMC presents the same circumstances.
A final factor in our conclusion is that the BMC is a
required element in interstate railroad and truck tariff
filings. Unless a container carrying a BMC is used, a shipper is
limited in the damage claims he can bring against a carrier. We
are reluctant to cast doubt upon the use of containers whose
characteristics meet important regulatory and commercial purposes
in the U.S.
Finally, we wish to emphasize that T.D. 86-129 does not
conflict with this ruling. T.D. 86-129, by its terms, applies
only to footwear and footwear boxes. By way of background, we
note that T.D. 86-129 was prompted by particular problems which
arose with respect to imported footwear, and for which a strict
interpretation of 19 CFR 134.46 was deemed by Customs to be
warranted.
-4-
HOLDING:
The BMC located on the bottom of corrugated shipping cartons
does not trigger the requirements of 19 CFR 134.46
Sincerely,
Marvin M. Amernick
Chief, Value, Special
Programs and Admissibility
Branch