C.F.R. » Title 19 » CHAPTER I—U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY › PART 134—COUNTRY OF ORIGIN MARKING › Subpart E—Method and Location of Marking Imported Articles

19 C.F.R. § 134.46

Marking when name of country or locality other than country of origin appears

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

In any case in which the words “United States,” or “American,” the letters “U.S.A.,” any variation of such words or letters, or the name of any city or location in the United States, or the name of any foreign country or locality other than the country or locality in which the article was manufactured or produced appear on an imported article or its container, and those words, letters or names may mislead or deceive the ultimate purchaser as to the actual country of origin of the article, there shall appear legibly and permanently in close proximity to such words, letters or name, and in at least a comparable size, the name of the country of origin preceded by “Made in,” “Product of,” or other words of similar meaning.

[T.D. 97-72, 62 FR 44214, Aug. 20, 1997]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1991–2019 · leading case: Dunn-Heiser v. United States, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dunn-Heiser v. United States, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005). · cites it 8× “” 19 C.F.R. § 134.46 . Moreover, when the potentially misleading or deceptive reference to the U.”
Jblu, Inc. v. United States, 813 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2016). · cites it 3× “[[Image here]] When the shipments arrived, Customs inspected samples of the jeans and determined that JBLU violated section 304 of the Tariff Act because the jeans did not comport with the marking requirements of 19 C.F.R. § 134.46 . Section 304 of the Tariff Act, as amended,…”
O'Hara v. Diageo-Guinness, USA, Inc., 370 F. Supp. 3d 204 (D.D.C. 2019). · cites it 6× “§ 1304 (a), and certain regulations, 19 C.F.R. § 134.46 , and 21 C.F.R. § 101.”
Am. Frozen Food Inst., Inc. v. United States, 855 F. Supp. 388 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994). “19 C.F.R. §§ 134.46 , 134.47 (1993). 4 . The industry practice is to mark the country of origin on the back panel, usually near the nutritional information and the expiration date of the food products.”
Norcal/Crosetti Foods, Inc. v. United States Customs Serv., 758 F. Supp. 729 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1991). “§ 1304 ; 19 C.F.R. § 134.46 (1990); National Juice Products Assoc.”
JBLU, Inc. v. United States, 2015 CIT 8 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015). · cites it 15× “Subsequent to inspecting samples of the jeans, Customs issued Notices to Mark and/or Redeliver to JBLU, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 134.46 , stating that the jeans were not legally marked with the country of origin.”
Carrier v. United States, 20 Ct. Int'l Trade 227 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996). · cites it 2× “Although Carrier concedes that the question involved a trademark (which was not at issue in question 98), he contends that 19 C.F.R. § 134.46 also applies to question 60 of the April 1994 exam and yet, the correct answer for question 60 did not mention a disparity between the…”
Eazypower Corp. v. Jore Corp., 747 F. Supp. 2d 997 (N.D. Ill. 2010). “Furthermore, until 1997, 19 C.F.R. § 134.46 required that: In any case in which the words “United States,” or “American,” the letters “U.”
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.