MAR-2-05 CO:R:C:V 731506 KG
John H. Heinrich
District Director
Los Angeles, California
RE: Country of origin marking of imported automotive glass
Dear Mr. Heinrich:
This is in response to your memorandum of July 21, 1988,
(MAR-2-05-LA:CO:TTB-1 DLM), requesting internal advice on the
country of origin marking of imported replacement automotive
glass. We regret the delay in responding to your inquiry.
FACTS:
Mitsubishi International Corporation imports automotive
glass from Japan for the replacement automotive market. The
automotive glass is packaged in two ways. Deep bent automotive
glass such as windshields and rear windows are individually
packaged in plastic containers. Side window automotive glass are
individually packaged in cardboard containers. All the
containers are marked with the country of origin of the glass.
The car manufacturer's name, the trademark of the glass, the
material code, the Department of Transportation ("DOT") number
and other markings required by the European Community are sand-
blasted on the glass. It is common commercial practice to mark
the glass with the trademark, DOT number and other certification
marks. The part numbers are placed on labels on the individual
container.
In HQ 726169 (September 20, 1984), Customs denied an
importer's request for an exemption from individual country of
origin marking of glass windshields and windows for buses and
automobiles. Customs cited examples of who might be considered
the ultimate purchaser of imported glass in different
circumstances, but did not rule on who the ultimate purchaser was
in that case.
In HQ 729257 (March 30, 1988), Customs clarified its
position that the examples cited in HQ 726169 were not necessary
to the ruling and were not binding on Customs.
In your memorandum, you asked that we determine who is the
ultimate purchaser of imported replacement automotive glass and
how the imported glass ought to be marked for country of origin
marking purposes.
ISSUE:
Whether the installer of imported replacement automotive
glass is the ultimate purchaser for country of origin marking
purposes.
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 (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. Friedlaender & 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 134.1(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. The definition then gives examples of who
might be the ultimate purchaser if the imported article is used
in manufacture, if the imported article is sold at retail in its
imported form and if an imported article is distributed as a
gift.
The standard for determining the ultimate purchaser of an
article used in manufacture is set forth in section 134.35,
Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.35), which provides that the
manufacturer or processor who converts or combines the imported
article into an article having a name, character or use differing
from that of the imported article is considered the ultimate
purchaser. Under such circumstances, the imported article is
substantially transformed and the article itself need not be
individually marked. Only the outermost container in which the
article is imported must be marked.
A substantial transformation occurs when articles lose their
identity and become new articles having a new name, character or
use. United States v. Gibson-Thomsen Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 267 at 270
(1940), National Juice Products Association v. United States, 10
CIT 48, 628 F.Supp. 978 (CIT 1986), Koru North America v. United
States, 12 CIT ___, 701 F.Supp. 229 (CIT 1988).
In the instant case, the automotive glass is imported
already cut to size and is merely installed into the automobile.
Further, the glass is imported already cut to shape and dedicated
to use as either a windshield, rear window, or side window and
made to fit a particular automobile type and model. In addition,
the automotive glass is imported in a finished condition and
merely requires installation. No evidence was submitted that
the installation is particularly complex or requires a great deal
of skill. For all the above reasons, the installation of
replacement automotive glass into an automobile is not a
substantial transformation.
Since the replacement automotive glass is not substantially
transformed, pursuant to 19 CFR 134.35, the automobile owner who
purchases the glass is the ultimate purchaser. The marking
statute requires that the ultimate purchaser, who in this case is
the automobile owner purchasing replacement glass, be made aware
of the country of origin of the imported article.
Section 134.41(a), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.41(a)),
states that as a general rule, marking requirements are best met
by marking worked into the article at the time of manufacture.
For example, it is suggested that the country of origin on metal
articles be die sunk, molded in or etched; on earthenware or
chinaware be glazed on in the process of firing; and on paper
articles be imprinted. The marking requirements of 19 CFR
134.41 are best met by marking worked into the glass at the time
of manufacture which would be visible to the automobile owner
purchasing the glass. In any case, the marking must be
sufficient to insure that in any reasonably foreseeable
circumstance, the marking shall remain on the article until it
reaches the ultimate purchaser unless it is deliberately removed.
HOLDING:
Imported replacement automotive glass is not substantially
transformed when it is installed in an automobile. Therefore,
pursuant to 19 CFR 134.1(d), the automobile owner who purchases
the replacement glass is the last person in the U.S. to receive
it in its imported form and is the ultimate purchaser of the
imported automotive glass. Pursuant to 19 CFR 134.41, the
marking requirement is best met with a marking worked into the
glass at the time of manufacture which would be visible to the
automobile owner purchasing the glass.
Sincerely,
Jerry Laderberg
Acting Director,
Commercial Rulings Division
cc: Pete Fortrell
U.S. Customs Service
Champlain, Ill.
Jacob Bunin, NIS
U.S. Customs Service
6 World Trade Center
New York, NY
John N. Politis, Esquire
Sandler & Travis
3435 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90010