MAR-2-05 CO:R:C:V 734500 KR
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
cc: Chief, NIS Branch 3