The postings of a customs lawyer in Chicago on the state of customs law and international trade law. Important Disclaimer: None of this is legal advice, don't act on it. Don't ascribe these statements to my law firm, its partners or clients. Don't steal from my blog. I wrote it, I own it. But, feel free to link to me. Also, under the rules regulating speech by attorneys, this blog may be construed as lawyer advertising. I am the sole party responsible for the content.
Larry - that's good stuff. Was the canned lobster meat labeled "origin US & Canada"?
The only way around that would be to initiate an inventory management method to determine Canada Lobster meat versus US lobster meat, which is not practical? JLO
Well, I'm not sure about that. This would be a NAFTA marking case, not an origin case. The meat was all processed in Canada. Without actually looking at the NAFTA Marking Rules in Part 102, I'd guess that the country of origin for marking purposes in Canada. If part of the meat were from, say Australia, and the question were origin, then an inventory management system might be necessary.
3 comments:
Larry - that's good stuff. Was the canned lobster meat labeled "origin US & Canada"?
The only way around that would be to initiate an inventory management method to determine Canada Lobster meat versus US lobster meat, which is not practical? JLO
Good stuff Larry. Was the can labeled "origin US and Canada"?
jlo
Well, I'm not sure about that. This would be a NAFTA marking case, not an origin case. The meat was all processed in Canada. Without actually looking at the NAFTA Marking Rules in Part 102, I'd guess that the country of origin for marking purposes in Canada. If part of the meat were from, say Australia, and the question were origin, then an inventory management system might be necessary.
Post a Comment