(a) Notice to mark or redeliver. When articles or containers are found upon examination not to be legally marked, the Center director shall notify the importer on Customs Form 4647, or its electronic equivalent, to arrange with the Center director's office to properly mark the article or containers, or to return all released articles to Customs custody for marking, exportation, or destruction.
(b) Identification of articles. When an imported article which is not legally marked is to be exported, destroyed, or marked under Customs supervision, the identity of the imported article shall be established to the satisfaction of the Center director.
(c) Supervision. Verification of marking, exportation, or destruction of articles found not to be legally marked shall be at the expense of the importer and shall be performed under Customs supervision unless the Center director accepts a certificate of marking as provided for in § 134.52 in lieu of marking under Customs supervision.
[T.D. 72-262, 37 FR 20318, Sept. 29, 1972, as amended by CBP Dec. 15-14, 80 FR 61288, Oct. 13, 2015]
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Heon Seok Lee, 937 F.3d 797 (7th Cir. 2019).
“§ 1304 (j); see also 19 C.F.R. § 134.51 . He emphasizes that § 1304 does not itself purport to criminalize mismarking a product’s country of origin, despite providing criminal sanctions for other violations.”
Pentax Corp. v. Robison, 20 Ct. Int'l Trade 486 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996).
· cites it 3× “Plaintiffs’ further “real world” arguments are unpersuasive: First, plaintiffs argue that in the “real world,” instead of assessing a ten percent marking duty on liquidated merchandise for plaintiffs’ failure to correctly mark the imported merchandise, plaintiffs maintain that…”
Frontier Ins. v. United States, 2002 CIT 12 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
· cites it 6× “To comply with the “supervision” requirement of 19 C.F.R. § 134.51 (c) by a certificate of marking, the importer is obligated to act in accordance with the requirements of 19 C.”
United States v. Pentax Corp., 69 F. Supp. 2d 1361 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999).
· cites it 2× “Remarking, exportation, or destruction, would have been required, 19 C.F.R. § 134.51 (a) (1991). 2 If none of these measures were accomplished and if the mismarking had been discovered before liquidation, marking duties would have been assessed.”
Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 529 F. Supp. 661 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1981).
· cites it 2× “On January 21, 1980 and January 22, 1980, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 134.51 (a), 2 the Customs Service issued a Notice of Redelivery as to each of these entries, thereby requiring Uniroyal to redeliver the merchandise to Customs' custody or to mark the merchandise with the country…”
United States v. Heon Seok Lee (7th Cir. 2019).
“§ 1304 (j); see also 19 C.F.R. § 134.51 . He emphasizes that § 1304 does not itself purport to criminalize mismarking a product’s country of origin, despite providing criminal sanctions for other violations.”
United States v. Heon Seok Lee (7th Cir. 2019).
“§ 1304 (j); see also 19 C.F.R. § 134.51 . He emphasizes that § 1304 does not itself purport to criminalize mismarking a product’s country of origin, despite providing criminal sanctions for other violations.”
— 19 C.F.R. § 134.51(a) — 2 cases
Frontier Ins. v. United States, 2002 CIT 12 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
“To comply with the “supervision” requirement of 19 C.F.R. § 134.51 (c) by a certificate of marking, the importer is obligated to act in accordance with the requirements of 19 C.”
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.