Country of Origin Marking; Women’s Dress and Belt; 19 CFR 102.21; T.D. 91-7; Common Sense Approach

HQ W559983 August 22, 1996 MAR-02 RR:TC:SM W559983 MLR CATEGORY: Marking Arthur W. Bodek, Esq. Siegel, Mandell & Davidson, P.C. One Astor Plaza 1515 Broadway, 43rd Floor New York, NY 10036-8901 RE: Country of Origin Marking; Women’s Dress and Belt; 19 CFR 102.21; T.D. 91-7; Common Sense Approach Dear Mr. Bodek: This is in reference to your letter dated June 12, 1996, forwarded from the Textiles Branch, Office of Regulations & Rulings, requesting a ruling on behalf of Liz Claiborne, Inc., concerning the country of origin marking of a women’s dress and self-fabric belt which will be imported into the U.S. after July 1, 1996. FACTS: Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 959342 issued to you on July 18, 1996, found that a women’s dress and self-fabric belt was considered a “composite good” in which the dress imparted the essential character, and that the country of origin of this composite good was Country B for duty and visa/quota purposes, pursuant to 19 CFR 102.21(c)(2) and 19 CFR 102.21(e). The facts of HRL 959342 are hereby incorporated by reference. However, in particular, we note that the dress and belt fabric was woven in Country A, the belt was formed in Country A, but that the fabric for the dress was cut and sewn into a complete garment in Country B. ISSUE: Whether a single country of origin marking is acceptable for the subject dress and self-fabric belt, which constitutes a “composite good.” LAW AND ANALYSIS: 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 imported in 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. 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 goods 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. Inc., 27 CCPA 297, 302, C.A.D. 104 (1940). Part 134, Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 134), implements country of origin marking requirements and exceptions of 19 U.S.C. 1304. Section 334 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, codified at 19 U.S.C. 3592, provides new rules of origin “for purposes of the customs laws and the administration of quantitative restrictions” for textiles and apparel entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on and after July 1, 1996. Since the marking statute, 19 U.S.C. 1304, is a Customs law, the general rules set forth in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of section 102.21, Customs Regulations, which implement section 334 must be applied for purposes of determining the country of origin marking requirements under 19 U.S.C. 1304 for the the dress and self-fabric belt. See 60 FR 46188 (September 5, 1995). As determined in HRL 959342, 19 CFR 102.21(c)(2), is applicable, and it provides that: [w]here the country of origin of a textile or apparel product cannot be determined under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the country of origin of the good is the single country, territory, or insular possession in which each foreign material incorporated in that good underwent an applicable change in tariff classification, and/or met any other requirement, specified for the good in paragraph (e) of this section. As noted in HRL 959342, the rule under 102.21(e), 6201-6208 is applicable to the composite good at issue, which provides: 6201-6208 (1) If the good consists of two or more component parts, a change to an assembled good of heading 6201 through 6208 from unassembled components, provided that the change is the result of the good being wholly assembled in a single country, territory, or insular possession. Accordingly, as held in HRL 959342, the country of origin of the composite good is Country B. Since 19 CFR 102.21 implements section 334 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act which applies “for purposes of the customs laws,” and 19 U.S.C. 1304 is a Customs law, the country of origin of the dress and self-fabric belt for marking purposes is Country B. Therefore, only a single country of origin marking on the dress will be needed for the dress and belt composite good.. We note that in T.D. 91-7 (January 8, 1991), Customs set forth country of origin marking requirements and a “common sense” approach to articles which comprise a collection of goods. The result reached in this case regarding a single country of origin marking for the dress and self-fabric belt is consistent with rulings applying the “common sense” approach addressed in T.D. 91-7. See HRL 734216 dated January 6, 1992 (a dress and matching belt imported as a composite good and sold together only required a single country of origin marking on the dress, as the belt had minimal influence on the purchasing decision). Accordingly, the analysis presented in T.D. 91-7 need not be employed in this case. HOLDING: Based upon the information submitted and pursuant to 19 CFR 102.21(c)(2), 19 CFR 102.21(e), and HRL 959342, we find that the country of origin of the dress and self-fabric belt is Country B. Since 19 CFR 102.21 implements section 334 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act which applies “for purposes of the customs laws,” and 19 U.S.C. 1304 is a Customs law, the country of origin of the dress and self-fabric belt for marking purposes is Country B, and only a single country of origin marking will be needed on the dress. The holding set forth above applies only to the specific factual situation and merchandise identified in the ruling request. This position is clearly set forth in section 177.9(b)(1), Customs Regulations {19 CFR 177.9(b)(1)}. This section states that a ruling letter is issued on the assumption that all of the information furnished in the ruling letter, either directly, by reference, or by implication, is accurate and complete in every material respect. Should it be subsequently determined that the information furnished is not complete and does not comply with 19 CFR 177.9(b)(1), the ruling will be subject to modification or revocation. In the event there is a change in the facts previously furnished, this may affect the determination of country of origin. Accordingly, it is recommended that a new ruling request be submitted in accordance with section 177.2, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 177.2) A copy of this ruling letter should be attached to the entry documents filed at the time the goods are entered. 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, John Durant, Director Tariff Classification Appeals Division