HQ 560154
January 2,1997
MAR-05 RR:TC:SM 560154 BLS
Mr. Richard G. Seley
Rudolph Miles & Sons, Inc.
P.O. Box 11057
El Paso, Texas 79983
RE: Applicability of country of origin marking to containers
shipped under Transportation and
Exportation entry
Dear Mr. Seley:
This is in reference to your letter dated October 11, 1996,
requesting a ruling concerning the marking of containers shipped
in bond in the U.S. under a Transportation and Exportation Entry
("T & E").
FACTS:
Epson El Paso, Inc. ("Epson") will import from Japan certain
disposable aluminum packaging materials which will be used as the
outermost containers for ink jet cartridges. These containers
will cross the U.S. in-bond on a T & E from either Los Angeles or
Long Beach, California, to El Paso, Texas, to be immediately
exported to Mexico. Since the country of origin of the ink
cartridges will be Mexico,
and the printing on the packaging includes the geographic
locations "Netherlands" and "Japan", Epson wishes to mark the
containers "Made in Mexico" in close proximity and comparable
size to the geographic localities which are not the country of
origin of the ink cartridges. You state that Epson has no intent
to enter these containers empty into the U.S. for consumption.
ISSUE:
Whether disposable containers of Japanese origin which are
transported in bond in the U.S. under a T & E entry and are
exported without being withdrawn for consumption in the U.S., are
subject to the country of origin marking requirements.
-
2 -
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 its 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.
Part 134 of the Customs Regulations implements the country of
origin marking requirements and exceptions of 19 U.S.C. 1304.
Part 134.32, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.32), sets forth
some of the general exceptions to the marking requirements.
Section 134.32(j), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.32(j)),
provides that articles entered or withdrawn from warehouse for
immediate exportation or for transportation and exportation are
excepted from marking requirements. This regulation applies to
situations, such as the case presented, where merchandise enters
the United States or is withdrawn from a warehouse, solely for
exportation or transportation and exportation to another country
and is never consumed or used in the United States.
It is well established, that as a general rule, goods are
considered "imported", and hence subject to the tariff statute,
when they are brought within a Customs district of the United
States with an intent to unlade. Hollander Co. v. U.S., 22
C.C.P.A. 645, T.D. 47632 (1935); Estate of Pritchard v. U. S., 43
C.C.P.A. 85, C.A.D. 612 (1955); Sterling Bronze Co. v. U.S., 12
Ct. Cust. Appls. 338, T.D. 40487 (1924); Mills & Gibbs Corp. v.
U.S., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 72, T.D. 40933 (1925); and Charles T.
Smith Inc. v. U.S., 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 39, C.D. 789 (1943). Of
significance to the case at hand is the opinion in East Asiatic
Co., Inc. v. U.S., 27 C.C.P.A. 364, C.A.D. 112 (1940), which
involved an interpretation of the word "importation" as used in
the statute governing additional duties for failure to mark,
section 304, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304).
The court in East Asiatic stated that "import" in the tariff
sense implies the bringing into the United States of foreign
goods for use or consumption here. With respect to marking the
court stated that:
...when Congress enacted section 304(b), supra,
relating
to the marking of any imported goods, it had in mind
merchandise which was to enter into our commerce.
Unless the goods entered into our commerce, a failure
to mark them would be of no concern . . .. (East
Asiatic
Co., Inc., 27 C.C.P.A. 364 at 366-67).
- 3 -
Based on the East Asiatic Co. decision, it follows that
imported articles and/or their containers that enter the U.S. for
transportation and exportation and are not destined for
consumption or use in the United States are excepted from the
marking requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1304.
As noted in the facts above, the importer will enter the
packaging materials into the U.S. for the sole purpose of transit
through the U.S. with no intention of entering such materials
into the commerce of the United States. Thus, consistent with
the holding in East Asiatic and pursuant to the exception from
marking provided for in 19 CFR 134.32(j), we find that, under the
circumstances of this case, the containers are not subject to
the marking requirements of Section 304 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304). This exception is not
applicable if the goods are entered for consumption, whether or
not they are subsequently exported.
HOLDING:
Based on the information submitted, disposable containers
that are imported in bond for transportation and exportation
through the U.S., to be exported to Mexico, are excepted from the
marking requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1304. Therefore, marking the
containers in the described manner will not contravene the
marking requirements upon arrival of the empty containers into
the U.S.
A copy of this ruling 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 Appeals Division