The goal of this web site is to persuade you to replace "bad fats" in your diet with an ounce (2 tablespoons or 30ml) of extra virgin olive oil every day of your life.

Come visit our blog...

ooo home | exec summary | live long | eat well | impurity | 101 uses | get some | directory | our story | contact

Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304), provides that unless excepted, every article of foreign origin imported into 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." See United States v. Friedlander & Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 297 at 302; C.A.D. 104 (1940).

Section 134.1(b) of the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Regulations (19 CFR 134.1(b)), defines “country of origin” as the country of manufacture, production, or growth. In order to change the country of origin, further work or material added to the article in another country must effect a substantial transformation. A substantial transformation occurs when the further work or material added in another country results in an article having a different name, character, or use. United States v. Gibson-Thomsen Co., Inc., 27 C.C.P.A., 267 (CAD 98). In National Juice Products Association v. United States, 628 F. Supp. 978 (CIT 1986), the court considered whether foreign manufacturing concentrate processed into frozen concentrated orange juice in the U.S. and reconstituted orange juice was considered substantially transformed. The U.S. processing involved blending the manufacturing concentrate with other ingredients to create the end product; the manufacturing concentrate was mixed with purified and dechlorinated water, orange essences, orange oil, and in some cases, fresh juice. The foreign manufacturing concentrate was blended with domestic concentrate, with ratios of 50/50 or 30/70 (foreign/domestic). The court considered that the U.S. processing added relatively minor value to the product and that the manufacturing concentrate imparted the essential character to the juice and made it orange juice. The court concluded that the foreign manufacturing juice concentrate was not substantially transformed in the U.S. when it was processed into retail orange juice products. Thus, since the product contained concentrate from more than one foreign country, the packaging had to list all such countries.

Part 134, CBP Regulations (19 CFR Part 134), implements the country of origin marking requirements and exceptions of 19 U.S.C. 1304. Section 134.46, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 134.46), contains more restrictive marking requirements designed to alleviate the possibility of misleading an ultimate purchaser with regard to the country of origin of an imported article. Specifically, 19 CFR 134.46 requires that, in instances where the name of any city or locality in the U.S., or the name of any foreign country or locality other than the name of the country or locality in which the article was manufactured or produced, appears on an imported article or its container, there shall appear, legibly and permanently, in close proximity to such words, letters or name, and in at least a comparable size, the name of the country of origin preceded by "Made in," "Product of," or other words of similar meaning. CBP has ruled that in order to satisfy the close proximity requirement, the country of origin marking must appear on the same side(s) or surface(s) in which the name of the locality other than the country of origin appears. See HQ 559886, dated August 16, 1996.

It is also important to note that CBP has consistently held that blending a product from one country with the same product of another country does not constitute a substantial transformation. In HQ 560944, dated April 27, 1998, CBP determined that the blending of Spanish olive oil with Italian olive oil in Italy does not result in a substantial transformation of the Spanish product. See also HQ 732260, dated June 20, 1989, where whiskey imported from Scotland and Ireland and blended in the U.S., did not result in a substantial transformation and the marking had to reflect the country of origin of each of the constituent whiskeys.