19 C.F.R. § 134.41

Methods and manner of marking

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Suggested methods of marking. Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304), requires that the marking of the country of origin be legible, indelible, and permanent. Definite methods of marking are prescribed only for articles provided for in § 134.43 and for articles which are the objects of special rulings by the Commissioner of Customs. 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.

(b) Degree of permanence and visibility. The degree of permanence should be at least sufficient to insure that in any reasonably foreseeable circumstance, the marking shall remain on the article (or its container) until it reaches the ultimate purchaser unless it is deliberately removed. The marking must survive normal distribution and store handling. The ultimate purchaser in the United States must be able to find the marking easily and read it without strain.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1986–1994 · leading case: Norcal/Crosetti Foods, Inc. v. United States Customs Serv., 758 F. Supp. 729 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1991).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Norcal/Crosetti Foods, Inc. v. United States Customs Serv., 758 F. Supp. 729 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1991). · cites it 9× “Plaintiffs also request that Customs be ordered to enact new regulations “to amend 19 C.F.R. § 134.41 (b) to enforce the plain Congressional intent of 19 U.”

Norcal/Crosetti Foods, Inc. v. United States, 963 F.2d 356 (Fed. Cir. 1992). · cites it 2× “Customs responded by issuing a ruling letter stating that the country of origin marking on the submitted samples was “conspicuous” within the meaning of section 1304 and 19 C.F.R. § 134.41 (b), and that country of origin markings need not appear in the manner suggested by Norcal.”

Am. Frozen Food Inst., Inc. v. United States, 855 F. Supp. 388 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994). “41(a) of the Customs Regulations, “[d]efinite methods of marking are prescribed only for articles provided for in § 134.”

Norcal/Crosetti Foods, Inc. v. United States Customs Serv., 731 F. Supp. 510 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1990). “§ 1304 2 and its implementing regulation, 19 C.F.R. § 134.41 (b). 3 Having *512 received a negative ruling from Customs concerning the adequacy of country of origin marking requirements, Norcal now seeks a determination by this Court regarding the proper interpretation of the…”

Pabrini, Inc. v. United States, 630 F. Supp. 360 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986). “Section 304 provides that the Secretary of the Treasury “may by regulations .”

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.