Ruling of the Week 2016.9: Contact

Having already invoked Star Trek: First Contact today, I will now reference Contact.

Arecibo, Puerto Rico is probably most famous for being the location of the Arecibo radio telescope observatory. It was there that the fictional astronomer from Carl Sagan's book, played by Jodie Foster in the movie, successfully decoded a message from intelligent aliens. The book is better than the movie, but both are worthwhile.



Recently, Arecibo became home to a 360-foot monument to the European discovery of the New World. Note that 300 feet is roughly the size of the Statute of Liberty.

The customs issue in NY N272432 (Feb. 26, 2016) does not have to do with the statute. Instead, it has to do with tchotchkes sold as souvenirs in the gift shop near the monument. In particular coffee mugs that have the words "Puerto Rico" or "Arecibo, Puerto Rico" printed on them.

The question presented to Customs and Border Protection was how to properly mark these mugs with their country of origin. The mugs are made in China. As such, they are articles of foreign origin that must be marked with their country of origin in a manner that is conspicuous, permanent, and legible. 19 USC § 1304.

Typically, the origin label on a coffee mug could be placed on the bottom. That is reasonably conspicuous and easy enough for the consumer to find. But, there is a regulation (19 CFR § 134.46) that says that if there is a geographic indication on the item that is not the country or locality of origin, then the true origin label must be in close proximity and in comparable size. You can image that a large "Made in China" label near the "Puerto Rico" marking would be less than aesthetically ideal.

Recently, we discussed an exception to this rule that applies where the locality is part of the trademark for the item. It turns out that another exception applies.

Under § 134.47, the "close proximity" requirement does not apply if the locality is stated as part of a "souvenir marking." That is the case here. "Puerto Rico" is on the mug to make the mug a tourist's keepsake from the visit. Consequently, according to Customs and Border Protection, placing the origin marking "Made in China" on the bottom of the mug via an adhesive label is perfectly acceptable.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ruling of the Week 2015.8: Old Jersey and Pitcairn Island

Image
For today's ROTW, I set out looking for a ruling dealing with some far off and preferably warm location. Turns out that, with the exception of coastwise transit issues, there are no Customs and Border Protection rulings involving Pitcairn Island or any of several Pacific Ocean microstates including Tuvalu , Niue , and Kiribati . Pitcairn Island What I did find is an interesting question about the country of origin marking for products of the Bailiwick of Jersey Island, Channel Islands. The ruling is HQ 561938 (Mar. 18, 2002). For those of you who may not know, Jersey is an island off the coast of Normandy, France. It is an independent international actor and not part of the U.K. although the U.K. is responsible for its defense and external relations. Also, the Queen is the Head of State in her capacity as "the Crown in Right of Jersey." It is, according to the U.S. Department of State, a " Crown Dependency " along with the Isle of Man and the Bailiwick o
Read more

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl
Read more

Ninestar and UFLPA Exhaustion

Image
Exhaustion is a key doctrine in administrative law. When applicable, it requires that a party unhappy with an agency’s determination complete the administrative appeal process before turning to the courts for judicial review. Requiring exhaustion typically promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring that disputes are resolved at the agency and, if they are not, that there is a complete record of the agency process. Exhaustion also ensures that the judiciary respects the executive agencies and their expertise.  There are, on the other hand, times when the courts will find that exhaustion is not necessary or appropriate. Such is the case in  Ninestar Corporation et al. v. United States  et al., a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade.  Ninestar is also interesting because it is one of the first cases in the CIT involving the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, known as UFLPA. In my hiatus from active blogging, I missed the rise of UFLPA as a major compliance topic. So, let's
Read more