Marking of Lasted Uppers - CR 134.36 - Processed in U.S.

NY 882983 April 12,1993 CLA-2-64:S:N:N8:346-ST 882983 Supplement 1 CATEGORY: Marking TARIFF NO.: 6406.10.05; 6406.10.40 Ms. Beverly Feagans G. S. Engers, CHB 333 Richmond Street El Segundo, CA 90245 RE: Marking of Lasted Uppers - CR 134.36 - Processed in U.S. Dear Ms. Feagans: In your letter dated February 19, 1993, on behalf of Amtrail, Inc., you requested a tariff classification ruling on a men's lasted upper from China. The sample submitted was a suede leather boot upper, marked "CATERPILLAR", which was lasted to a Texon sole. In our letter to you, dated March 11, 1993 (copy attached), we classified that item and provided marking advice. The classification ruling issued is not in question. However, following the author's review of the letter, we believe that a part of the marking advice is misleading. In the third paragraph on page 2, we stated that each upper had to be individually marked with the country of origin, which is correct, but we also indicated that this marking would "not necessarily" be unacceptable if it were in a place where it could not be seen by the retail purchaser. We had in mind that any marking in the import might be obliterated by the normal processing needed to produce the finished boot. However, Section 134.36 in the Customs Regulations (CR) negates the exemption for marking for "articles which are to be processed in the U. S. by the importer...if there is a reasonable method of marking which will not be obliterated, destroyed or permanently concealed by such processing." We believe there are "reasonable" methods, albeit perhaps inconvenient to you, to mark these uppers, e.g., on a label sewn inside the top edge of the tongue, in a way that will be conspicuous, legible and permanent from the point of view of both the purchaser of the formed uppers and the retail purchaser of the boot. You therefore must "necessarily" use one of these methods unless you can establish that none of them are "reasonable" on a technical or a cost basis. Note that this letter does not affect our advice concerning the tags, which is a Federal Trade Commission issue. We regret any confusion that our earlier letter may have caused you. This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Section 177 of the Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. 177). A copy of this ruling letter should be attached to the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is imported. If the documents have been filed without a copy, this ruling should be brought to the attention of the Customs officer handling the transaction. Sincerely, Jean F. Maguire Area Director New York Seaport