DOCSLIB.ORG

Country of Origin Compliance: Challenges for International Supply Chain Managers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Country of Origin Compliance: Challenges for International Supply Chain Managers May 2002 Bulletin 02-19 Country of Origin Compliance: Challenges for International Supply Chain Managers If you have questions or would Your company imports components from countries in Asia, North America, and like additional information on Europe, and then combines them with various U.S. components in a facility in the the material covered in this United States to create a finished product. Bulletin, please contact the author: ? What is the country of origin and how must the finished product be Jason P. Matechak marked for purposes of Customs regulations? (Washington) ? Can you mark the finished product “Made in USA?” 202.414.9224 [email protected] ? Can you sell the finished product to both civilian and defense agencies of …or the Reed Smith attorney the U.S. government? with whom you regularly work, There are no easy answers to these questions, and the correct answers may seem or the head of Reed Smith’s Government Contracts/Export inconsistent. For example, the finished product may not need to be marked for Controls Practice Group: Customs purposes because it is not deemed to be a foreign product, while at the same time it could be sold to the U.S. government because it meets the James K. Kearney requirements of the Buy American Act, but could not be labeled “Made in USA” (Washington) because it does not satisfy the relevant Federal Trade Commission rules. 202.414.9228 Alternatively, the finished product might have to be marked with a foreign country [email protected] of origin for Customs purposes, and thus could not be marked “Made in USA,” but may or may not be eligible for sale to the U.S. government depending on the application of the Buy American Act or the Trade Agreements Act. The confusion among country of origin requirements stems from the overlapping jurisdiction of a number of U.S. government agencies and the interplay among their respective goals and purposes. ? The U.S. Customs Service (“Customs”) administers country of origin designations for purposes of marking imported products. Customs marking requirements are designed in part to inform U.S. consumers about the origin of foreign products. ? The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) oversees “Made in USA” claims as part of its broad consumer protection authority. FTC rules are designed to protect U.S. consumers against fraudulent and deceptive marketing practices. ? The various civilian and defense agencies apply country of origin requirements under the auspices of the Buy American Act and the Trade Agreements Act. The Buy American Act was passed in the 1930s in order to promote U.S. employment. The original Trade Agreements Act was passed in 1979 to implement various U.S. treaties requiring non-discrim- ination and reciprocity in national government procurement markets. Delaware New Jersey New York Pennsylvania United Kingdom This bulletin is presented for informational purposes and is not intended to constitute legal advice. Virginia “Reed Smith” refers to Reed Smith LLP and related entities. Washington, DC © Reed Smith LLP 2002. All Rights Reserved. Formed in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. r e e d s m i t h . c o m Client Bulletin 02-19 Simultaneous application of these regulatory regimes is not only confusing but sometimes can also have surprising results. More significantly, failure to comply with Customs, FTC and public procurement regulations can result in significant penalties. In all cases, Customs, the FTC, and the various public procurement entities are empowered to assess civil fines for non-compliance. Criminal penalties including incarceration are even available for the most egregious intentional violations. In addition to civil and criminal liability, non-compliance can cause considerable business disruption. For example, Customs can impound mis-marked products at the port of entry until they are properly marked, imposing both financial costs and associated delays. In federal procurement, non-compliance can result in contract termination and debarment from future contracts with the U.S. government. Manufacturers, importers, and distributors selling products in the U.S. in both the private marketplace and through public procurement contracts must establish monitoring and compliance systems that timely and accurately collect and track country of origin information for components and final products in order to comply with Customs, FTC and public procurement country of origin regulations. Customs Marking Regulations Most manufacturers, importers and distributors are aware that Customs has jurisdiction over country of origin marking. Under the Tariff Act of 1930 (“Tariff Act”), Customs requires that unless excepted, every article of foreign origin (or its container) imported into the U.S. must 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 the English name of the country of origin of the article to the ultimate purchaser in the U.S. 19 U.S.C. § 1304; 19 C.F.R. § 134.11. By definition, items that are not of “foreign origin”—i.e., domestic products—need not be marked with any country of origin. Based on these statutory and regulatory requirements, manufacturers, importers and distributors must consider the country of origin of a product, who the ultimate purchaser is, and how the product is marked. For many foreign products that are manufactured from a number of components, the country of origin is generally the last country in which the product was “substantially transformed” into the product sold to the ultimate purchaser. 19 C.F.R. § 102.11; 19 C.F.R. § 134.1. Customs has generally found that a product is substantially transformed if the product has undergone a change in name, character and use. Somewhat complicating matters, goods originating from the countries of the North American Free Trade Act (“NAFTA”) (Canada and Mexico), have specialized marking regulations. 19 C.F.R. § 102, et seq. The NAFTA marking rules do not utilize the general “substantial transformation” test, but rather examine whether a “tariff shift” has occurred such that the product is considered a new item of commerce under the Harmonized Tariff Classification System of the U.S. (“HTSUS”). When non-origin geographical indicators are used on product labels, additional marking regulations apply. If the product or its label refers to “USA,” the “United States,” or “American,” or any foreign country or locality other than the country or locality in which the article was manufactured or produced, Customs requires that the true country of origin appear prominently, in close proximity to the non-origin geographic indicator. 19 C.F.R. § 134.46. Customs is concerned that product labels marked “A product of XYZ Corp., Chicago, Illinois,” or “Manufactured by XYZ Corp., Virginia, USA,” or similar non-origin geographic indicators may confuse purchasers as to the true country of origin. Similar marking regulations apply when non-origin geographic indicators are used in a registered trademark. 19 C.F.R. § 134.47. FTC “Made In USA” Regulations Customs is generally regarded as the lead federal agency for enforcement of country of origin claims, but other agencies have jurisdiction over these claims as well. The FTC is charged with preventing “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” in the marketplace, 15 U.S.C. § 45, and is authorized to bring law enforcement actions against false or misleading claims that a product is “Made in USA.” Therefore, all “Made in USA” claims must be both truthful and substantiated by reliable evidence. - 2 - Client Bulletin 02-19 Subject to a de minimus exception, the FTC generally requires that “all or virtually all” of the product advertised as “Made in USA” be made in the United States. As a threshold matter, in determining whether a product is “all or virtually all” made in the U.S., the product’s final assembly or processing must in fact take place in the U.S. itself. The FTC then considers how much of the product’s total manufacturing costs can be attributed to U.S. components, and how far removed any foreign content is from the finished product. “Made in USA” claims are proper only if a negligible amount of foreign content is present. FTC rules permit qualifications to “Made in USA” claims so long as the qualification is substantiated and not deceptive or otherwise untruthful, misleading or unfair. Typical qualified claims include “75% U.S. Content,” or “Made in the USA from German components.” The FTC may also allow a claim such as “Assembled in the USA” without additional qualification if the claim is not confusing or misleading to customers. U.S. origin may also be implied by including phrases such as “American quality,” or by utilizing U.S. symbols such as the U.S. flag, depictions of U.S. maps or references to U.S. locations. Implied claims are governed by the same rules and regulations on substantiation and non-deception. It is important to note that even where Customs regulations do not require labeling with a foreign country of origin, the FTC may still prohibit labeling a product as “Made in USA.” This may be the case because a product may be substantially transformed into a new item of commerce in the U.S., but the components constituting the product may not be “all or substantially all” of U.S. origin. On the other hand, if Customs marking regulations are implicated, the FTC would find it deceptive to mark a product, “Made in USA of U.S. and imported parts.” However, considering the interplay between Customs and FTC regulations, qualified claims such as “Made in France and finished in USA” or “Made in France with U.S. components” may be acceptable under both Customs and FTC regulations if truthful and substantiated.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Country-Of-Origin Labeling for Foods
    Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods Remy Jurenas Specialist in Agricultural Policy July 15, 2010 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RS22955 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods Summary Many retail food stores are now required to inform consumers about the country of origin of fresh fruits and vegetables, seafood, peanuts, pecans, macadamia nuts, ginseng, and ground and muscle cuts of beef, pork, lamb, chicken, and goat. The rules are required by the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107- 171) as amended by the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246). Other U.S. laws have required such labeling, but only for imported food products already pre-packaged for consumers. Both the authorization and implementation of country-of-origin labeling (COOL) by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service have not been without controversy. Much attention has focused on the labeling rules that now apply to meat and meat product imports. A number of leading agricultural and food industry groups continue to oppose COOL as costly and unnecessary. They and some major food and livestock exporters to the United States (e.g., Canada and Mexico) also view the new requirement as trade-distorting. Others, including some cattle and consumer groups, maintain that Americans want and deserve to know the origin of their foods, and that many U.S. trading partners have their own, equally restrictive import labeling requirements. Obama Administration officials announced in February 2009 that they would allow the final rule on COOL, published just before the end of the Bush Administration on January 15, 2009, to take effect as planned on March 16, 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • 879 Part 134—Country of Origin Marking
    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, DHS; Treasury Pt. 134 removal or obliteration of the name, Subpart A—General Provisions mark, or trademark by reason of which 134.1 Definitions. the articles were seized. 134.2 Additional duties. (b) Copyright violations. Articles for- 134.3 Delivery withheld until marked and feited for violation of the copyright redelivery ordered. laws shall be destroyed. 134.4 Penalties for removal, defacement, or (c) Articles bearing a counterfeit trade- alteration of marking. mark. Merchandise forfeited for viola- Subpart B—Articles Subject to Marking tion of the trademark laws shall be de- stroyed, unless it is determined that 134.11 Country of origin marking required. the merchandise is not unsafe or a haz- 134.12 Foreign articles reshipped from a U.S. possession. ard to health and the Commissioner of 134.13 Imported articles repacked or manip- Customs or his designee has the writ- ulated. ten consent of the U.S. trademark 134.14 Articles usually combined. owner, in which case the Commissioner of Customs or his designee may dispose Subpart C—Marking of Containers or of the merchandise, after obliteration Holders of the trademark, where feasible, by: 134.21 Special marking. (1) Delivery to any Federal, State, or 134.22 General rules for marking of con- local government agency that, in the tainers or holders. opinion of the Commissioner or his des- 134.23 Containers or holders designed for or capable of reuse. ignee, has established a need for the 134.24 Containers or holders not designed merchandise; or for or capable of reuse.
    [Show full text]
  • HP Color Laserjet Pro MFP M479 Series Lighten Your Workload, Focus on Your Business Winning in Business Means Working Smarter
    Data sheet HP Color LaserJet Pro MFP M479 series Lighten your workload, focus on your business Winning in business means working smarter. The HP Color LaserJet Pro MFP M479 is designed to let you focus your time where it’s most effective-growing your business and staying ahead of the competition. HP Color LaserJet Pro M479dw HP Color LaserJet Pro M479fnw Dynamic security enabled printer. Only Built to keep you – and your business – moving forward Scan files directly to Microsoft® SharePoint®, email, USB, and network folders.1 intended to be used with cartridges using an Help save time by automating all the steps in a complicated workflow and apply saved HP original chip. Cartridges using a non-HP settings.2 chip may not work, and those that work today Print wirelessly with or without the network, stay connected with dual band Wi-Fi and 3,4,5 may not work in the future. Learn more at: Wi-Fi direct. Print effortlessly from any device, virtually anywhere, to any HP printer – securely http://www.hp.com/go/learnaboutsupplies through the cloud.6 Highlights HP's best-in-class security – detect and stop attacks7 A suite of embedded security features help protect your MFP from being an entry point 2 sided printing for attacks.7 Dual-band Wi-Fi & wireless Help ensure security of confidential information with optional PIN/Pull printing to retrieve Embedded Security features print jobs.8 HP Roam enabled Optional HP JetAdvantage Security Manager lets you set configuration. Scan to Sharepoint, email, USB and network folders Thwart potential attacks and take immediate action with instant notification of security issues.9 Simply designed to uncomplicate your day Set up this MFP fast, and easily manage device settings to help increase overall printing efficiency.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Analysis of Country of Origin Labeling (COOL)
    REPORT TO CONGRESS Economic Analysis of Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) April 2015 U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Chief Economist Washington, D.C. Economic Analysis of Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) Contents Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Modeling Approaches ..................................................................................................................... 3 Equilibrium Displacement Model Approach .............................................................................. 3 Other Approaches ........................................................................................................................ 4 Assumed Regulatory Costs ......................................................................................................... 5 Results ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Estimated Impacts on Consumers ............................................................................................... 8 Estimated Impacts on Producers, Processors, and Retailers ....................................................... 9 Estimated Impacts of the 2009 Rule ........................................................................................ 9 Estimated Impacts of the 2013 Rule ...................................................................................... 12 Conclusions
    [Show full text]
  • Marking of Country of Origin on U.S. Imports
    Marking of Country of Origin on U.S. Imports Informed Compliance Publication Publication No. 1150-0620 Every article of foreign origin entering the United States must be legibly marked with the English name of the country of origin unless an exception from marking is provided for in the law. SPECIAL NOTE: This webpage is strictly about marking of country of origin on U.S. imports and is for general information purposes only. Reliance solely on this general information may not be considered reasonable care. Recognizing that many complicated factors may be involved in origin issues (raw materials are from one country while the product is assembled in another), an importer may wish to obtain a binding ruling from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. For more information please see determining the correct Country of Origin to use under the Customs Regulations, 19 CFR Part 177. Please be aware that in addition to this information, certain products are subject to additional labeling requirements. For example, clothing must have labels indicating fabric content and washing instructions. Other products with special labeling requirements include tobacco (the Surgeon General’s Warning Statement), food and pharmaceuticals, and automobiles. General Information What is the purpose of marking? To inform the ultimate purchaser in the United States of the country in which the imported article was made. Who is the ultimate purchaser? The ultimate purchaser is generally the last person in the United States who will receive the article in the form in which it was imported. If the article will be used in manufacture, the manufacturer or processor in the United States is the ultimate purchaser if the processing of the imported article results in a substantial transformation of the imported article, becomes a good of the United States under the NAFTA Marking Rules (19 CFR Part 102), or becomes a good of the United States under the textile rules of origin (19 CFR 102.21), as applicable.
    [Show full text]
  • United States – Certain Country of Origin Labelling (Cool) Requirements
    WT/DS384/AB/RW WT/DS386/AB/RW 18 May 2015 (15-2569) Page: 1/191 Original: English UNITED STATES – CERTAIN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELLING (COOL) REQUIREMENTS RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY CANADA AND MEXICO AB-2014-10 Reports of the Appellate Body Note: The Appellate Body is issuing these Reports in the form of a single document constituting two separate Appellate Body Reports: WT/DS384/AB/RW; and WT/DS386/AB/RW. The cover page, preliminary pages, sections 1 through 5, and the annexes are common to both Reports. The page header throughout the document bears the two document symbols WT/DS384/AB/RW and WT/DS386/AB/RW, with the following exceptions: section 6 on pages CDA-169 to CDA-172, which bears the document symbol for and contains the Appellate Body's conclusions and recommendation in the Appellate Body Report WT/DS384/AB/RW; and section 6 on pages MEX-173 to MEX-176, which bears the document symbol for and contains the Appellate Body's conclusions and recommendation in the Appellate Body Report WT/DS386/AB/RW. WT/DS384/AB/RW • WT/DS386/AB/RW - 2 - Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 11 2 ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTICIPANTS AND THIRD PARTICIPANTS ..................... 16 2.1 Claims of error by the United States – Appellant .............................................. 16 2.1.1 Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement ........................................................................... 16 2.1.1.1 The increased recordkeeping burden entailed by the amended COOL measure ............. 17 2.1.1.2 The accuracy of labels prescribed by the amended COOL measure ............................
    [Show full text]
  • Made in Usa Standard
    Complying with the MADE IN USA STANDARD Federal Trade Commission | business.ftc.gov Table of Contents Introduction 1 Basic Information About Made In USA Claims 2 The Standard For Unqualified Made In USA Claims 4 Qualified Claims 9 The FTC and The Customs Service 13 Other Statutes 15 What To Do About Violations 17 For More Information 18 Your Opportunity to Comment 18 Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims 19 Endnotes 33 Introduction The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is charged with preventing deception and unfairness in the marketplace. The FTC Act gives the Commission the power to bring law enforcement actions against false or misleading claims that a product is of U.S. origin. Traditionally, the Commission has required that a product advertised as Made in USA be “all or virtually all” made in the U.S. After a comprehensive review of Made in USA and other U.S. origin claims in product advertising and labeling, the Commission announced in December 1997 that it would retain the “all or virtually all” standard. The Commission also issued an Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims to provide guidance to marketers who want to make an unqualified Made in USA claim under the “all or virtually all” standard and those who want to make a qualified Made in USA claim. This publication provides additional guidance about how to comply with the “all or virtually all” standard. It also offers some general information about the U.S. Customs Service’s requirement that all products of foreign origin imported into the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Labeling Requirements for Herbal Dietary Supplements
    GUIDANCE: Federal Labeling Requirements for Herbal Dietary Supplements September 2019 (Revised) Prepared by the American Herbal Products Association This document was originally published in August 1999 under the title “Labeling of dietary supplements: Saying it right the first time.” It has been updated to reflect interim changes in law, including those from the May 2016 Final Rule revising FDA’s nutrition labeling regulations. This document is the property of the American Herbal Products Association (AHPA) and is for AHPA purposes only. Unless given prior approval from AHPA, it shall not be reproduced, circulated, or quoted, in whole or in part, outside of AHPA, its Committees, and its members. Cite as: American Herbal Products Association. September 2019. GUIDANCE: Federal Labeling Requirements for Herbal Dietary Supplements. AHPA: Silver Spring, MD. GUIDANCE: Federal Labeling Requirements for Herbal Dietary Supplements Disclaimer The information contained herein is not and should not be considered legal advice. This AHPA publication is not a substitute for the actual statutes, regulations, and agency guidance that apply to the products and activities that are discussed herein. The information contained herein is not intended to replace or supersede federal or any state statutes, regulations or guidance. This document is specifically relevant to federal labeling requirements for dietary supplement products. No other issues related to the manufacture, marketing, or sale of food, dietary ingredients, dietary supplements, cosmetics, or any other class of consumer goods are addressed herein. While AHPA believes the information herein is accurate, AHPA advises all individuals and entities using this information to discuss all aspects of their application of this information with an attorney or qualified consultant, or with personnel at relevant regulatory agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines on Certification of Origin
    GUIDELINES ON CERTIFICATION OF ORIGIN July 2014 (updated in June 2018) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1. What is certification of origin? .......................................................................................... 4 2. Who are the key players involved? .................................................................................. 5 2.1. Who needs a proof of origin? .................................................................................. 5 2.2. Who issues a proof of origin? ................................................................................... 6 II. PREFERENTIAL ORIGIN 3. When is a proof of origin needed for preferential purposes? ............................................ 6 4. Issuer of proof of origin for preferential ........................................................................... 7 5. Characteristics of different systems for certification of origin .......................................... 7 5.1. Certification of origin involving the competent authority of the exporting country ..... 7 5.2. Self-certification of origin .......................................................................................... 8 5.2.1. Approved exporter system ............................................................................... 9 5.2.2. Registered exporter system ............................................................................. 9 5.2.3. Fully exporter-based system ............................................................................ 9 5.2.4. Importer-based system
    [Show full text]
  • An Argument for WTO Oversight of Ecolabels
    An Argument for WTO Oversight of Ecolabels Hajin Kim* I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 422 II. CONTEXT ............................................................................................................. 423 A. Ecolabels and the Green Gap .......................................................... 423 B. Opposition to WTO Oversight ....................................................... 426 1. Environmentalists ....................................................................... 426 2. Developing countries ................................................................. 429 III. WTO OVERSIGHT IN THEORY: BENEFITS AND LIMITATIONS ................... 431 A. The WTO Generally ............................................................................ 431 B. Legal Scope ............................................................................................ 432 C. TBT Agreement Application in Theory ...................................... 437 1. No discrimination unless justified by legitimate regulatory motivations .............................................................. 437 2. No more trade-restrictive than necessary ........................ 439 3. Minimization of the number of standards and regulations ...................................................................................... 443 4. The use of performance over design requirements ...... 444 5. Transparency ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • On the Country of Origin Effect of Eco-Label
    Economics 2021; 10(3): 79-86 http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/eco doi: 10.11648/j.eco.20211003.12 ISSN: 2376-659X (Print); ISSN: 2376-6603 (Online) On the Country of Origin Effect of Eco-Label Yingjun Xu Research Center for Food Safety and Green Agricultural Development, Qufu Normal University, Rizhao, China Email address: To cite this article: Yingjun Xu. On the Country of Origin Effect of Eco-Label. Economics. Vol. 10, No. 3, 2021, pp. 79-86. doi: 10.11648/j.eco.20211003.12 Received : July 4, 2021; Accepted : July 13, 2021; Published : July 27, 2021 Abstract: With the rapid development of global industrialization and urbanization, the ecological problems is increasingly aggravating. The consumers’ demand for safety and environment friendly food is increasing. Taking organic tomato as an example, we design the choice experiment to acquire 847 consumers’ relevant data from Shandong province, and use the random parameters logit model to investigate the consumers' preferences for organic labels from different countries (or districts). The results show that consumers have the highest willing to pay for EU organic label, the Chinese Hong Kong organic label, the Brazil organic label and the China organic label are behind successively. The influence of the ecological consciousness on the consumer preference is small. In general, consumers’ preference orders for organic labels from different countries (or districts) are the same for all ecological consciousness groups. The willingness to pay of the consumers in the low ecological consciousness group and the middle ecological consciousness group are very close, while the willingness to pay of the consumers in the high ecological consciousness group is slightly higher than that of the consumers in the low and middle ecological consciousness group.
    [Show full text]
  • Country of Origin Marking Requirements for Products, Sub
    TOSHIBA GLOBAL COMMERCE SOLUTIONS, INC. STANDARD #: 3ADMECH1001 VERSION: REV000 EFFECTIVE DATE: April 12, 2016 REVISION DATE: April 12, 2016 Country of Origin Marking Requirements for Products, Sub‐Assemblies, and Parts Standard Responsibility: Mechanical Hardware Development Document Owner: Robert Myers 1.0 Change History Version Date Change Description REV000 2016/03/31 First Toshiba release 2.0 Scope 2.1 Objectives This document defines the legal country of origin (CoO) information commonly required to be shown on all Toshiba Global Commerce Solutions (TGCS) products, sub‐assemblies, and parts. It also includes the locations for this information and the design criteria for marking. For the purpose of this document, a product is defined as any hardware system, machine unit or device offered for sale or lease by TGCS. A part or sub‐assembly is a component of a product. All products produced, procured, or repaired by or for TGCS, including finished products, Field Replaceable Units (FRUs), sub‐assemblies, parts, media recorded with software programs, manuals accessories and supply items are required to be marked with the appropriate country of origin even if the item is not expected to be in international commerce. Compliance with this document will ensure consistency of country of origin information for TGCS products, sub‐assemblies, and parts from all divisions and manufacturing locations. It will TOSHIBA GLOBAL COMMERCE SOLUTIONS, INC. STANDARD #: 3ADMECH1001 VERSION: REV000 EFFECTIVE DATE: April 12, 2016 REVISION DATE: April 12, 2016 satisfy the presently known technical, legal, and national requirements for all countries in which TGCS markets or supplies products. 2.2 Application This standard applies to all products entering System Design Verification (SDV) or equivalent (e.g., Hardware Functional Test) on or after the publication date of this standard.
    [Show full text]