## Facts

- Friedlaender & Co. Inc. imported chinaware into the United States through the Port of New York.
- The chinaware was manufactured in territory identified as Czechoslovakia before German domination.
- The goods were shipped to the United States after Germany had taken control of Czechoslovakia.
- Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1304) required imported articles to be marked with the English name of the country of origin to inform the ultimate U.S. purchaser.
- The collector of customs refused release because the articles were not marked “Germany,” reasoning that Czechoslovakia was not sovereign at the time of export.
- The importer argued the proper origin was “Czechoslovakia” because that was where the goods were manufactured.

## Issues

1. For country-of-origin marking under 19 U.S.C. § 1304, is “country of origin” determined by the place of manufacture or by the sovereign controlling the exporting territory at the time of export/import?
2. How should § 1304 be interpreted in light of its purpose of informing the “ultimate purchaser” in the United States?

## Decision

- The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals reversed the Customs Court.
- The court sustained the government’s position that the collector could require marking consistent with Germany as the country of origin in these circumstances.
- The court stated that Congress intended origin marks to let the ultimate purchaser, by inspection at the time of purchase, know the country of which the goods are the product and decide whether to buy based on that information.

## Legal Principles

- The marking statute’s central objective is to inform the ultimate purchaser of the country of which the goods are the product so the purchaser may buy or refuse to buy if origin affects the decision.
- “Country of origin” under 19 U.S.C. § 1304 may be applied to reflect the sovereign entity controlling the territory from which goods are exported at the time they enter U.S. commerce, rather than only the historical state existing when manufacture occurred.
- A construction that obscures present-day origin information for consumers may be rejected where it conflicts with the statute’s consumer-information purpose.

## Conclusion

The court held that, for marking purposes under 19 U.S.C. § 1304, customs could require origin marking that reflected Germany’s control over the exporting territory at the time of shipment/importation, emphasizing that the statute exists to give ultimate purchasers clear origin information at the time of purchase.


United States v. Friedlaender & Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 297 (1940)