(a) Any imported article (or its container) held in CBP custody for inspection, examination, or appraisement will not be delivered until marked with its country of origin, or until estimated duties payable under 19 U.S.C. 1304(f), or adequate security for those duties (see § 134.53(a)(2)), are deposited.
(b) An authorized CBP official may demand redelivery to CBP custody of any article (or its container) previously released which is found to be not marked legally with its country of origin for the purpose of requiring the article (or its container) to be properly marked. A demand for redelivery will be made, as required under § 141.113(a) of this chapter, not later than 30 days after—
(1) The date of entry, in the case of merchandise examined in public stores and places of arrival, such as docks, wharfs, or piers; or
(2) The date of examination, in the case of merchandise examined at the importer's premises or such other appropriate places as determined by the port director.
(c) Nothing in this part shall be construed as excepting any article (or its container) from the particular requirements of marking provided for in any other provision of law.
[T.D. 80-88, 45 FR 18921, Mar. 24, 1980, as amended by T.D. 90-51, 55 FR 28190, July 10, 1990; CBP Dec. 08-25, 73 FR 40726, July 16, 2008]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2023 · leading case:
Pentax Corp. v. Robison, 20 Ct. Int'l Trade 486 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996).
Pentax Corp. v. Robison, 20 Ct. Int'l Trade 486 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996).
· cites it 3× “Second, plaintiffs argue that “Customs would have detained in Customs[‘] custody any mismarked shipments * * * [pursuant to] 19 C.F.R. § 134.3 (a). 11 * * * Pentax would have remarked these detained goods * * * and so would not have incurred marking duties on those ensuing…”
Cyber Power Sys. (USA) Inc. v. United States, 2020 CIT 130 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020).
“” Where goods are not properly marked to show their country of origin, they are considered “restricted” merchandise, which Customs may exclude from entry into the United States.”
Cyber Power Sys. (USA) Inc. v. United States, 2023 CIT 24 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).
“§ 1304 (j); see also 19 C.F.R. § 134.3 (a). 2 C. Substantial Transformation Plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that its subject merchandise is substantially transformed in the country it wishes to represent as the merchandise’s country of origin.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.