H323767

HQ H323767 March 29, 2022 OT:RR:CTF:FTM H323767 PJG CATEGORY: Marking Mr. Jeffrey S. Grimson Ms. Jill Cramer Mowry & Grimson, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 810 Washington, D.C. 20015 RE: Affirmation of NY N323837; Country of origin marking of ceramic tiles from Turkey Dear Mr. Grimson and Ms. Cramer: This letter pertains to New York Ruling Letter (“NY”) N323837, dated February 9, 2022, which concerns the country of origin marking of two styles of ceramic tiles that are manufactured in Turkey and referred to as “Calacatta Dali Ceramic Tile” with Stock Keeping Unit (“SKU”) Numbers 100618552 and 100780246. In a ruling request filed on behalf of your client, FD Sales Company LLC, you have inquired whether “Made in Turkiye” and/or “Made in Türkiye” are acceptable country of origin markings. Furthermore, you requested, and CBP granted, a meeting that was held on March 25, 2022. For the reasons set forth below, we are affirming NY N323837. FACTS: At issue are two types of ceramic tiles both referred to as the Calacatta Dali Ceramic Tile. One of the tiles is identified by SKU number 100618552 and measures 12 inches by 24 inches and is 0.35 inches thick. The second tile is identified by SKU number 100780246 and measures 4 inches by 12 inches and is 0.31 inches thick. The country of origin marking of the tiles is printed with black ink on the underside of the tile and on their cartons. In NY N323837, CBP determined that the proposed markings of “Made in Turkiye” and “Made in Türkiye,” did not satisfy the country of origin marking requirements of 19 U.S.C. § 1304 and 19 C.F.R. Part 134. ISSUES: Whether the words “Made in Turkiye” and/or “Made in Türkiye” are acceptable country of origin markings for the ceramic tiles that are made in Turkey. Whether the placement of the country of origin marking on the ceramic tiles and the packaging sufficiently meets the country of origin requirements. LAW AND ANALYSIS: The marking statute, Section 304(a), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1304(a)), provides that unless excepted, every article of foreign origin imported into the United States shall be marked in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly, and permanently as the nature of the article (or container) will permit in such manner as to indicate to an ultimate purchaser in the United States 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 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., 27 C.C.P.A. 297, 302 (1940). Part 134 of Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 C.F.R. Part 134), implements the country of origin marking requirements and exceptions of 19 U.S.C. § 1304. Section 134.45(b) (19 C.F.R. § 134.1(b)) provides as follows: Abbreviations and variant spellings. Abbreviations which unmistakably indicate the name of a country, such as “Gt. Britain” for “Great Britain” or “Luxemb” and “Luxembg” for “Luxembourg” are acceptable. Variant spellings which clearly indicate the English name of the country of origin, such as “Brasil” for “Brazil” and “Italie” for “Italy,” are acceptable. The purpose of the marking law “was to require a marking such as would be understood by purchasers of foreign-made goods as giving definite and reliable information as to the country of origin.” American Burtonizing Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. 652, 654 (Ct. Cust. App. 1926). “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.” Id. The court opined that it did not think “Congress intended that American purchasers, consumers, or users of foreign-made goods should be required to speculate, investigate, or interpret in order that they might ascertain the country of origin.” Id. Section 134.1(b) (19 C.F.R. § 134.1(b)), permits in relevant part, variant spellings of the name of a country, as long as the variant spelling “clearly indicate[s] the English name of the country of origin.” CBP has previously held that the spelling “Turkiye” is “not an acceptable variant spelling which clearly indicates the English name of the country of origin.” See NY G89722 (April 30, 2001). You contend that, since the issuance of NY G89722, developments in Turkey regarding its economy, global relations, and the name of the country warrant a different approach with respect to the country of origin marking requirements of CBP. You further state that Turkish athletes at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics and Paralympics wore uniforms printed with the word “Türkiye.” CBP does not base its country of origin marking determinations on the wording used on athletic uniforms. The usage of this version of the name on the Olympic and Paralympic uniforms and developments in Turkey with regard to its economy, global relations, or the name of the country, do not sufficiently familiarize the ultimate purchaser in the United States with the use of “Türkiye” or “Turkiye” so that it is unmistakably recognizable as the country of origin. You also contend that the Central Intelligence Agency’s (“CIA”) World Factbook provides “Turkiye” “as the local short form name of the country” and the Embassy of Turkey commonly uses the word “Türkiye.” CBP has previously stated that we do not rely on the CIA Factbook or embassy websites, including U.S. Embassy websites, for country of origin marking purposes. See Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) H301905 (Feb. 28, 2019) (stating “your reliance on the CIA Factbook or the U.S. Embassy websites is misplaced as we do not rely on such sources to make our determination as to recognizability of an abbreviation for country of origin marking purposes”). While HQ H301905 concerned whether a proposed abbreviation was acceptable for country of origin purposes, we maintain the same position with regard to determining acceptable long or short form names of countries for marking purposes. You also refer to the Board on Geographic Names to support your position that “Turkiye” is “an acceptable marking from the perspective of the Board on Geographic Names.” As previously noted, the country of origin marking requirements are found in 19 C.F.R. Part 134, which is under CBP’s jurisdiction. According to its website, “[s]haring its responsibilities with the Secretary of the Interior, the [Board on Geographic Names] promulgates official geographic feature names with locative attributes as well as principles, policies, and procedures governing the use of domestic names, foreign names, Antarctic names, and undersea feature names.” You have provided your search results from the website of the Board on Geographic Names, which identifies “Türkiye” as “Approved – N.” The spelling “Turkiye” is not referenced in that list. The category “Approved – N” refers to “Approved – Non-authoritative” and we note that the Board on Geographic Names also includes a category for names referred to as “Conventional.” You also cite to NY M85276, dated August 16, 2006, to show that CBP has referred to the Board on Geographic Names to determine the acceptable spelling for the names of countries. In NY M85276, we cited to HQ 562901, in which CBP stated that “‘China’ and ‘Taiwan’ are generally the conventional spellings approved by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names.” (emphasis added). The “Conventional” names provided by the Board on Geographic Names for Turkey are “Turkey” and the “Republic of Turkey.” CBP consults the U.S. Department of State for guidance concerning the proper names of countries and the spelling of these names. See HQ H301905 (Feb. 28, 2019), HQ H05682

The marking statute, Section 304(a), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1304(a)), provides that unless excepted, every article of foreign origin imported into the United States shall be marked in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly, and permanently as the nature of the article (or container) will permit in such manner as to indicate to an ultimate purchaser in the United States 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 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., 27 C.C.P.A. 297, 302 (1940). Part 134 of Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 C.F.R. Part 134), implements the country of origin marking requirements and exceptions of 19 U.S.C. § 1304. Section 134.45(b) (19 C.F.R. § 134.1(b)) provides as follows:Abbreviations and variant spellings. Abbreviations which unmistakably indicate the name of a country, such as “Gt. Britain” for “Great Britain” or “Luxemb” and “Luxembg” for “Luxembourg” are acceptable. Variant spellings which clearly indicate the English name of the country of origin, such as “Brasil” for “Brazil” and “Italie” for “Italy,” are acceptable. The purpose of the marking law “was to require a marking such as would be understood by purchasers of foreign-made goods as giving definite and reliable information as to the country of origin.”  American Burtonizing Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. 652, 654 (Ct. Cust. App. 1926). “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 coun