United States International Trade Commision Rulings And Harmonized Tariff Schedule
faqs.org  Rulings By Number  Rulings By Category  Tariff Numbers
faqs.org > Rulings and Tariffs Home > Rulings By Number > 2003 NY Rulings > NY J88424 - NY J88470 > NY J88445

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
NY J88445




September 17, 2003

MAR-2 RR:NC:SP:233 J88445

CATEGORY: MARKING

Ms. Miu Lam
Holsted Marketing Inc.
135 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016-6712

RE: THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN MARKING OF IMITATION JEWELRY FROM CHINA AND THAILAND.

Dear Ms.Lam:

This is in response to your letter dated September 5, 2003 requesting a ruling on whether the proposed marking is an acceptable country of origin marking for imported imitation jewelry. Marked samples were submitted with your letter for review.

The imitation jewelry to be imported includes earrings, rings, pendants, pins, bracelets and necklaces made of base metal (brass/sterling silver) and either 14 karat gold plated, 14 karat gold plated 2-tone or rhodium plated. You have submitted one pair of earrings and a necklace, each packed in a plastic jewelry box. Each box has a label on the bottom indicating the vendor code on the first row, followed by description, product number, plating information, vendor reference number and country of origin (“Made in China” or “Made in Thailand”). In addition, paper hangtags indicating “Made in Thailand” and “Made in China” have been attached to the necklace and one earring, respectively.

The marking statute, section 304, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304), provides that, unless excepted, every article of foreign origin (or its container) imported into the U.S. shall be marked in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly and permanently as the nature of the article (or its container) will permit, in such a manner as to indicate to the ultimate purchaser in the U.S. the English name of the country of origin of the article.

As provided in section 134.41(b), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.41(b)), the country of origin marking is considered conspicuous if the ultimate purchaser in the U.S. is able to find the marking easily and read it without strain.

With regard to the permanency of a marking, section 134.41(a), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.41(a)), provides that as a general rule marking requirements are best met by marking worked into the article at the time of manufacture. For example, it is suggested that the country of origin on metal articles be die sunk, molded in, or etched. However, section 134.44, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.44), generally provides that any marking that is sufficiently permanent so that it will remain on the article until it reaches the ultimate purchaser unless deliberately removed is acceptable.

The proposed country of origin marking of the imported imitation jewelry, as described above, is conspicuously, legibly and permanently marked in satisfaction of the marking requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1304 and 19 CFR Part 134 and is an acceptable country of origin marking for the imported imitation jewelry.

You ask whether the plating information must be listed. For Customs purposes, only the country of origin is required. However, if any karat or plating information is given, although not required, it must be accurate.

This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Part 177 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 177).

A copy of the ruling or the control number indicated above should be provided with the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is imported. If you have any questions regarding the ruling, contact National Import Specialist Lawrence Mushinske at 646-733-3036.

Sincerely,

Robert B. Swierupski
Director,

Previous Ruling Next Ruling