27 C.F.R. § 19.519

Labels for export spirits

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

(a) Required information. If a proprietor bottles spirits for export, the bottles must have a securely affixed label showing:

(1) The kind (class and type) of spirits;

(2) The percentage of alcohol by volume (ABV) of the spirits;

(3) The net contents, unless the markings on the bottle indicate such contents; and

(4) The name (or trade name) of the bottler.

(b) Additional information. The bottler may place additional information on the export label if it is not inconsistent with the information required under paragraph (a) of this section.

(c) Language. The export label information may appear in the language of the country to which the spirits are to be exported provided that the proprietor maintains on file an English translation of that information. The export label may state the net contents and percentage of alcohol by volume in the units of measurement of the foreign country, provided that the proprietor maintains a record of the equivalent units as required for labels of spirits bottled for domestic consumption.

(d) Waiver. The appropriate TTB officer may waive the requirement to show any information required by this section, other than the kind of spirits, upon a showing that the country to which the spirits are to be exported prohibits the showing of such information. In regard to kind (class and type) of spirits, the appropriate TTB officer may waive the designation required by § 5.63(a)(2) of this chapter, only to the extent that the label need not bear the word “diluted” for distilled spirits bottled below the minimum bottling proof, and provided that this is in accordance with the rules of the country to which the product is to be exported.

(26 U.S.C. 5201, 5301) [T.D. TTB-92, 76 FR 9090, Feb. 16, 2011, as amended by T.D. TTB-196, 89 FR 87939, Nov. 6, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1994–1994 · leading case: United States v. Fid. & Deposit Co. (5th Cir. 1994).
United States v. Fid. & Deposit Co. (5th Cir. 1994). “34 As such it cannot controvert the clear command of the Supreme Court in Hart—in which the federal official allegedly permitted the distiller to violate the law35—that the government cannot be estopped from collecting on excise tax bonds due to neglect or misconduct by its…”
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.