19 C.F.R. § 134.35
Articles substantially changed by manufacture
(a) Articles other than goods of a NAFTA or USMCA country. An article used in the United States in manufacture which results in an article having a name, character, or use differing from that of the imported article, will be within the principle of the decision in the case of United States v. Gibson-Thomsen Co., Inc., 27 C.C.P.A. 267 (C.A.D. 98). Under this principle, the manufacturer or processor in the United States who converts or combines the imported article into the different article will be considered the “ultimate purchaser” of the imported article within the contemplation of section 304(a), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304(a)), and the article shall be excepted from marking. The outermost containers of the imported articles shall be marked in accord with this part.
(b) Goods of a NAFTA or USMCA country. A good of a NAFTA or USMCA country which is to be processed in the United States in a manner that would result in the good becoming a good of the United States under the part 102 Rules is excepted from marking. Unless the good is processed by the importer or on its behalf, the outermost container of the good shall be marked in accord with this part.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1982–2016 · leading case: CPC Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 933 F. Supp. 1093 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996).
CPC Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 933 F. Supp. 1093 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996). “Customs ruled that under thé interim regulations, CPC’s retad containers of finished peanut butter, containing but a small quantity of Canadian-origin peanut slurry, do not qualify for the exception from marking under 19 C.F.R. § 134.35 (b) and the referenced NAFTA Marking…”
Bestfoods (Formerly Known as Cpc Int'l, Inc.) v. United States, Defendant-Cross, 165 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “Part 102 and 19 C.F.R. § 134.35 (b), employ the so-called “tariff shift” method for determining whether goods have undergone substantial transformation following their importation and therefore do not need to be marked to indicate their foreign origin.”
CPC Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 1 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997). “After review of the HRL, the court’s order of July 8, 1996 struck down as contrary to law Customs’ Interim Regulation 19 C.F.R. § 134.35 (a), effective January 1, 1994, implementing the North *2 American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act of 1993, Pub.”
CPC Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 971 F. Supp. 574 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997). “Specifically, Customs ruled that under the interim regulations, CPC’s retail containers of “Skippy” peanut butter do not qualify for the exception from marking under 19 C.F.R. § 134.35 (b) and the referenced NAFTA Marking Rules, 19 C.”
Nat'l Juice Prods. Ass'n v. United States, 628 F. Supp. 978 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986). “Customs has recently promulgated 19 C.F.R. § 134.35 (1985), which defines “Articles substantially changed by manufacture” as follows: An article used in the United States in manufacture which results in an article having a name, character, or use differing from that of the…”
Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 542 F. Supp. 1026 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1982). “35 of the Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. 134.35) provides: Articles substantially changed by manufacture.”
Koru North Am. v. United States, 701 F. Supp. 229 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988). “A processor who converts an imported article into a different article having a new name, character or use has substantially transformed the imported article, thereby requiring the markings on the product to reflect this change.”
Bestfoods v. United States, 110 F. Supp. 2d 965 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000). “20 , and Customs Regulation 19 C.F.R. § 134.35 (a) and (b), are valid, and remanded the case to this court “to permit Bestfoods to pursue any other arguments it may have as to why it should not be required to mark its product [‘Skippy’ brand peanut butter] under the applicable…”
Alcan Aluminum Corp. v. United States, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 1238 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997). “C Although the word transformed is contained in CFTA article 301, the plaintiff contends that the enactment of the CFTA implementing legislation did not abrogate or supersede an importer’s right to have the court apply the common law substantial transformation test under these…”
Boltex Mfg. Co. v. United States, 140 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000). “But see 19 C.F.R. § 134.35 (a)(1999) (stating, "the manufacturer .”
Nat'l Hand Tool Corp. v. United States, 16 Ct. Int'l Trade 308 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1992). “However, when the imported article is substantially transformed, marking is not required pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 134.35 (1991), which provides: An article used in the United States in manufacture which results in an article having a name, character, or use differing from that of…”
Energizer Battery, Inc. v. United States, 2016 CIT 116 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016). “Further work or material addéd to an article in another country must effect a substantial transformation in order to render such other country the ‘country of origin’ within the meaning of this part.” 19 C.F.R. § 134.1 (b).”
— 19 C.F.R. § 134.35(a) — 2 cases
CPC Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 971 F. Supp. 574 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997). “Specifically, Customs ruled that under the interim regulations, CPC’s retail containers of “Skippy” peanut butter do not qualify for the exception from marking under 19 C.F.R. § 134.35 (b) and the referenced NAFTA Marking Rules, 19 C.”
CPC Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 1 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997). “After review of the HRL, the court’s order of July 8, 1996 struck down as contrary to law Customs’ Interim Regulation 19 C.F.R. § 134.35 (a), effective January 1, 1994, implementing the North *2 American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act of 1993, Pub.”
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.