JIG Comments to US Customs Rules of Origin--March 30, 2000

March 30, 2000

US Customs Service
Office of Regulations and Rulings
Regulations Branch
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20229

To Whom It May Concern:

In response to the US Customs Service's January 26, 2000, notice (FR 00-1682), the Joint Industry Group ("JIG") hereby submits these comments regarding the proposed rulemaking to clarify existing country of origin marking requirements.

The Joint Industry Group is a member-driven coalition of one hundred sixty Fortune 500 companies, trade associations and businesses actively involved in international trade. JIG examines the concerns of the business community relative to current and proposed international trade-related policies, actions, legislation and regulations, and undertakes to improve them through dialogue with the Customs Service, other Executive agencies, the Congress, and international governmental organizations. JIG membership represents more that $350 billion in annual trade.

JIG commends the efforts of Customs to undertake a significant revision and restructuring of 19 CFR part 134 to help clarify existing regulations and promote the concept of informed compliance. We realize that country of origin marking regulations are inherently difficult to interpret and implement for both Customs and the trade. Our comments focus on two specific proposals.

The general consensus that we have received from our membership is that the proposed regulations, as a whole, do not completely clarify existing regulations, and in some cases, make interpretation and compliance more difficult.

The proposed regulations propose that the more rigorous marking requirements of §134.46 for cases where the name of the country or locality other than the country of origin appears would apply in cases involving trademarks and trade names. The Joint Industry Group believes that this change, although intended as a simplification in the rules, imposes stricter marking rules for trademarked goods than previously required under §134.47, where the marking is required in "close proximity or in some other conspicuous location." The explanation to the
proposed regulation provides no justification for this change. The more rigorous marking requirements should not apply to trademarked goods.

A second concern is in the repackaging area where the proposed rules indicate that
importers may be subject to marking duties and penalties under sections §134.33 and §134.34. We feel the current regulations are sufficiently restrictive and further broadening the responsibility of the importer for subsequent violations by repackers is unnecessary.

We thank the Customs Service for reviewing our comments. If there are questions or further comments please do not hesitate to contact our offices at (202) 466-5490.