Country of origin marking requirements of fence posts imported from Mexico; abbreviations; “Mex”; 19 CFR 134.45; HRL 560978

HQ 561442 July 19, 1999 MAR-02 RR:CR:SM 561442 RSD CATEGORY: MARKING Port Director United States Customs Service P.O. Box 3130 (Juarez-Lincoln Bridge) Laredo, Texas 78044-3130 RE: Country of origin marking requirements of fence posts imported from Mexico; abbreviations; “Mex”; 19 CFR 134.45; HRL 560978 Dear Director: This is in response to your memorandum dated July 1, 1999, requesting internal advice concerning the country of origin marking requirements for metal fence posts imported from Mexico. FACTS: The products in question are steel T fence posts imported from Mexico. The posts are printed with “Mex” two or three times along the length of the posts in raised lettering. ISSUE: Whether the abbreviation “Mex” for Mexico appearing on the fence posts satisfies the requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1304 and 19 CFR 134. LAW AND ANALYSIS: Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304), provides that, unless excepted, every article of foreign origin imported into the U.S. shall be marked in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly, and permanently as the nature of the article (or container) will permit, in such a manner as to indicate to the ultimate purchaser in the U.S. the name of the country of origin of the article. Congressional intent in enacting 19 U.S.C. §1304 was “that the ultimate purchaser should be able to know by an inspection of the marking on the imported goods the country of which the good is the product. The evident purpose is to mark the goods so that at the time of purchase the ultimate purchaser may, by knowing where the goods were produced, be able to buy or refuse to buy them, if such marking should influence his will.” United States v. Friedlaender & Co. 27 C.C. P. A. 297 at 302; C.A.D. 104 (1940). Part 134, Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 134), implements the country of origin marking requirements and the exceptions of 19 U.S.C. 1304. Section 134.45(b)(2) of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.45), states that “abbreviations which unmistakably indicate the name of a country ...are acceptable.” The purpose of the marking statute, as explained in American Burtonizing v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 652 (1926): [W]as to require a marking such as would be understood by purchasers of foreignmade goods as giving definite and reliable information as to the country of origin. It is not reasonable to suppose that Congress, by use of the word 'indicate' meant only that words used should hint at the country of origin. The object sought to be obtained by the legislature could best be obtained by an indication which was clear, plain, and unambiguous and which did more than merely hint at the country of origin. We do not think that Congress intended that American purchasers, consumers, or users of foreignmade goods should be required to speculate, investigate or interpret in order that they ascertain the county of origin. The instances in which Customs has permitted the use of abbreviations instead of the entire name of the country of origin have been limited. It is our view that most abbreviations do not “unmistakably” identify the country of origin and are therefore unacceptable. “The ultimate purchaser should be able to ascertain the country of origin at a glance without any guesswork....” Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 731799, dated May 15, 1989 (rejecting the abbreviations “VZLA" or “VENZLA”). The following are additional examples of abbreviations which Customs has previously rejected: (1) “Arg” or “Argtin” for Argentina and “Hun” or “Hung” for Hungary (HRL 733104, dated March 15, 1990); (2) “IN” for Indonesia (HRL 734443, dated June 3, 1992); (3) “H.K.” for Hong Kong (HRL 735281, dated February 24, 1994).  In HRL 731760, dated December 27, 1989, Customs ruled that “CAN” and “CDN” were not acceptable abbreviations for Canada. See also HRL 722566 dated September 14, 1983. Although both of these two decisions were issued prior to the year that NAFTA went into effect (1994), in a ruling (HRL 560108) issued on December 17, 1996, we reiterated our finding that “CAN” was not an acceptable abbreviation for Canada for country of origin marking purposes. Similarly in this situation, we do not believe that the abbreviation “Mex”on a product unmistakably identifies Mexico as the country of origin of the product. Therefore we find that since the abbreviation “Mex” is not an acceptable country of origin marking, the marking of the fence posts is not in compliance with the requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1304. HOLDING: As the abbreviation “Mex” on fence posts does not unmistakably identify the country of origin of the fence posts, the country of origin marking on the fence posts is not in compliance with the statutory and regulatory requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1304 and 19 CFR 134. Please advise the internal advice applicant of this decision. Sixty days from the date of the decision the Office of Regulations and Rulings will take steps to make the decision available to Customs personnel via the Customs Rulings Module in ACS and the public via the Diskette Subscription Service, Freedom of Information Act and other public access channels. Sincerely, John Durant, Director Commercial Rulings Division