27 C.F.R. § 5.42

Authorized relabeling activities by distillers and importers

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

(a) Relabeling at distilled spirits plant premises. A proprietor of distilled spirits plant premises may relabel domestically bottled distilled spirits prior to removal from, and after return to bond at, the distilled spirits plant premises, with labels covered by a certificate of label approval (COLA), without obtaining separate permission from TTB for the relabeling activity, provided that the proprietor is the certificate holder (and bottler).

(b) Relabeling after removal from distilled spirits plant premises. A proprietor of distilled spirits plant premises may relabel domestically bottled distilled spirits (or direct the relabeling of such spirits by an authorized agent) after removal from distilled spirits plant premises with labels covered by a COLA, without obtaining separate permission from TTB for the relabeling activity, provided that the proprietor is the certificate holder (and bottler).

(c) Relabeling in customs custody. Under the supervision of U.S. customs officers, imported distilled spirits in containers in customs custody may be relabeled without obtaining separate permission from TTB for the relabeling activity. Such containers must bear labels covered by a COLA upon their removal from customs custody for consumption. See § 5.24(b).

(d) Relabeling after removal from customs custody. The importer of distilled spirits in containers may relabel imported distilled spirits (or direct the relabeling of such spirits by an authorized agent) after removal from customs custody without obtaining separate permission from TTB for the relabeling activity, as long as the labels are covered by a COLA.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2021 · leading case: Bellion Spirits, LLC v. United States, 7 F.4th 1201 (D.C. Cir. 2021).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bellion Spirits, LLC v. United States, 7 F.4th 1201 (D.C. Cir. 2021). · cites it 5× “” 27 C.F.R. § 5.42 (a)(1); see id. § 5.65(a)(1).”

Bellion Spirits, LLC v. United States, 335 F. Supp. 3d 32 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “See 27 C.F.R. § 5.42 (b)(8)(ii)(A). A sub-category of such statements - those that make a "specific health claim" - must also be "adequately substantiated by scientific or medical evidence," among other additional requirements.”

Bellion Spirits, LLC v. United States of Am. (D.D.C. 2019). · cites it 16× “” 27 C.F.R. § 5.42 (a)(1) (labels on distilled spirits); see also 27 C.”

Abernathy v. Schenley Indus., Inc., 420 F. Supp. 1 (W.D.N.C. 1976). · cites it 4× “§ 205 (e), because of 27 C.F.R. § 5.42 (a)(1). It does not state a claim under 21 U.”

Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. Mathews, 435 F. Supp. 5 (W.D. Ky. 1976). “See also 27 C.F.R. 5.42(a)(1). In fact, one of the five explicit reasons set forth by the BATF in rejecting the idea of ingredient labeling for alcoholic beverages was that in certain cases ingredient labeling would be misleading.”

Bellion Spirits, LLC v. United States of Am. (D.D.C. 2018). “See 27 C.F.R. § 5.42 (b)(8)(ii)(A). A sub-category of such statements — those that make a “specific health claim” — must also be “adequately substantiated by scientific or medical evidence,” among other additional requirements.”

— 27 C.F.R. § 5.42(a)(1) — 1 case

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.