[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 48 (Thursday, March 12, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11996-12000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-6183]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Customs Service
19 CFR Part 133
[T.D. 98-21]
RIN 1515-AB28
Copyright/Trademark/Trade Name Protection; Disclosure of
Information
AGENCY: Customs Service, Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends the Customs Regulations to allow Customs
to provide to intellectual property rights (IPR) owners sample
merchandise and to disclose to IPR owners certain information regarding
the identity of persons involved with importing merchandise that is
detained or seized for infringement of the IPR owner's registered
copyright, trademark, or trade name rights. These amendments will
assist Customs in making infringement determinations and enable
concerned IPR owners to more expeditiously proceed to enforce their
property rights by means of instituting appropriate judicial remedies
against the parties identified as being involved with infringement of
the rights of the IPR owner.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 13, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Intellectual Property Rights
Branch, Office of Regulations and Rulings, (202) 927-2330.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 23, 1993, the Customs Service published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register (58 FR 44476) regarding the
disclosure to intellectual property rights (IPR) owners of sample
merchandise and certain identifying information regarding the identity
of persons involved with importing merchandise that is either detained
or seized for infringing copyright, trademark, or trade name rights.
Sixty-five comments were received pursuant to this notice.
Thereafter, the United States, Canada, and Mexico entered into the
North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and, on December 8, 1994,
the President signed the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) (Pub. L.
103-465, 108 Stat. 4809), both of which contain provisions pertaining
to the protection of IPR. The URAA contains the Agreement on Trade-
Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) (19 U.S.C.
3511) of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT)--now the World Trade Organization (WTO).
On July 14, 1995, Customs published its analysis of the 65 comments
in a revised Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (60 FR 36249). The revised
Notice, in addition to making changes in response to the comments
received, proposed further regulatory changes to make the regulations
consistent with certain provisions of the NAFTA and the URAA and to
improve the clarity of the proposed regulations. Accordingly, the
Background information contained in the revised Notice regarding these
agreements remains applicable and is incorporated here by reference.
The comments received in response to the revised Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking published on July 14, 1995, and Customs responses to them
are set forth below.
[[Page 11997]]
Analysis of Comments
Twenty-two comments were received (21 in favor, including 8 with
suggested changes to the revised proposal, and 1 against) that raised 7
areas of concern:
(1) Disclosure of confidential business information would violate
both the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Trade Secrets Act;
(2) Disclosure of confidential importer information to the IPR
holder is contrary to the intent of both NAFTA and GATT;
(3) The 30-day notification period does not allow the IPR owner to
act expeditiously;
(4) Disclosure should include country of origin information;
(5) Disclosure should include the date(s) of importation, the port
of entry, and a description of the merchandise;
(6) Disclosure should include the identity of the importer; and
(7) IPR owners should be allowed to retain samples sent for
inspection, and Customs should clarify its position regarding the
testing of samples, since testing may result in the destruction of a
sample.
1. Disclosure of Confidential Business Information Would Violate Both
the FOIA and the Trade Secrets Act
Comment: Stating that commercial information is ``confidential''
and, therefore, not subject to public disclosure, one commenter asserts
that the proposed disclosure of information would contravene both the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552) and the Trade Secrets
Act (18 U.S.C. 1905). Citing the FOIA as providing that confidential
information is not subject to public disclosure if it would cause
substantial harm to the competitive position of the source of the
information and the Trade Secrets Act as providing that sensitive
business information should not be disclosed unless otherwise provided
by law, the commenter states that Customs is bound not to disclose such
confidential information as the names and addresses of importers,
exporters, and manufacturers, and recommends that Customs withdraw its
revised notice.
Customs' Response: Customs disagrees with these interpretations of
the cited Acts.
Regarding the FOIA, its basic objective is to disclose official
information, making available to the public federal agency records (5
U.S.C. 552(a)), except to the extent that such records (or portions
thereof) are specifically exempt from disclosure (5 U.S.C. 552(b)).
Thus, contrary to the commenter's position, the FOIA does not mandate
nondisclosure, but rather seeks to establish workable standards for
determining whether particular material may be withheld or must be
disclosed.
Regarding the Trade Secrets Act, this Act specifically prohibits
the disclosure of confidential information, except as is authorized by
law, under penalty of fine and/or imprisonment (see also, Sec. 103.34
of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 103.34)). As explained below,
Customs has revised Sec. 133.22(b) so that no trade secret information
will be disclosed at the detention stage. However, at the seizure
stage, Customs believes that statutory authority exists to provide
Customs with the authority to disclose the information specified.
Therefore, Customs believes that substantive agency regulations,
promulgated pursuant to such statutory authority and published in
compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et
seq.), are not in conflict with the Trade Secrets Act.
Concerning Customs' statutory authority to disclose certain
importation information to IPR holders, numerous provisions in titles
15, 17, and 19 of the U.S. Code authorize the Secretary of the Treasury
(the Secretary) to promulgate regulations to enforce their prohibitions
against the importation of IPR-infringing merchandise. The Copyright
Act of 1976 (17 U.S.C. 602 et seq.) (the Copyright Act) prohibits the
importation of infringing copies and authorizes the Secretary to
prescribe a procedure whereby a person with an interest in the work may
be entitled to notification of the importation. Further, section 603 of
the Copyright Act authorizes the Secretary to enforce the Copyright
Act's provisions by prohibiting such importations, and provides that
(1) a court order may be obtained enjoining an importation and (2) a
claimant seeking exclusion of an importation may establish proof that
an importation would violate section 602. Such order or proof would
necessarily entail the availability of certain transaction information
to the person claiming an interest in the copyright.
Under the Lanham Trademark Act (15 U.S.C. 1124), the Secretary is
authorized to make regulations regarding trademarks and to aid Customs
officers in enforcing theprohibitions against importation. Also,
sections 526 and 595a(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19
U.S.C. 1526 and 1595a(c)), prohibit the importation or introduction of
merchandise with unauthorized trademarks or merchandise or packaging in
which copyright, trademark, or trade name protection violations are
involved and under the provisions of section 624 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1624), the Secretary is authorized to
promulgate regulations to carry out those provisions. Section 526 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, further provides for the
notification of trademark owners when merchandise bearing a counterfeit
mark is seized. Customs believes that these statutes may be reasonably
interpreted to permit Customs to provide for the disclosure of certain
import information, and where the identification of such violative
merchandise requires the assistance of IPR owners, relevant information
may be made available.
Since the purpose of these disclosure regulations is to further the
statutory enforcement scheme by allowing Customs to release certain
commercial information so that Customs can more timely and accurately
identify legitimate merchandise, pursuant to the regulations
promulgated herein, Customs is authorized by law to disclose such
information without violating the Trade Secrets Act. Accordingly, since
the regulations do not provide for the disclosure of either the
manufacturer's or importer's identity at the detention stage, no trade
secrets are being divulged. As stated in the revised Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, it is Customs policy to avail itself of any opportunity to
gather information quickly and accurately so that decisions concerning
imported merchandise can be correctly and timely made. Accordingly, the
provisions of Secs. 133.22 and 133.43, which pertain to detention, do
not provide for the disclosure of any manufacturer or importer
information, while the provisions of Secs. 133.23a and 133.42, which
pertain to seizure, are revised to allow for the disclosure of the name
and address information pertaining to the manufacturer and importer.
Further, to make clear when Customs officers will be required to
disclose importation information and provide sample merchandise to IPR
owners and when Customs officers may, on an ad hoc basis, disclose such
information, i.e., to solicit an IPR owner's assistance in determining
whether a particular importation should be detained in the first
instance, the provisions of Sec. 133.22(b) are revised to better
reflect Customs detention notice policies. Accordingly, Sec. 133.22(b)
has been amended to provide that once a notice of detention is issued,
Customs officers are required to disclose the importation information
to IPR owners, within the 30-day time limitation imposed by the
detention statute, in order to more quickly determine whether the marks
are restricted or prohibited. But during the time between presentation
of the
[[Page 11998]]
goods for Customs examination and issuance of a formal detention notice
Customs officers have the authority to disclose such importation
information where the circumstances warrant. Customs expects that such
disclosure will allow Customs officers, in many cases, to determine
immediately whether a formal detention should be initiated or whether
the goods should be released, thereby avoiding lengthy delays and
demurrage charges.
For the above reasons, Customs will not withdraw its revised
notice.
2. Disclosure of Confidential Importer Information to the IPR Holder Is
Contrary to the Intent of Both the NAFTA and the GATT
Comment: The same commenter suggested that the proposed disclosure
was contrary to the intent of both the NAFTA and the GATT. Citing the
NAFTA as providing that it does not affect U.S. law or practice
relating to parallel importation of products protected by intellectual
property rights and the GATT as stating that measures and procedures to
enforce property rights should not themselves become barriers to
legitimate trade, the commenter states that the proposed changes cannot
be said to be consistent with the stated objectives of these two
agreements. The commenter states that Customs' proposal is principally
directed at changing established law and practice relating to parallel
imports and will inevitably serve as a barrier to legitimate trade.
Accordingly, the commenter recommends that Customs withdraw its revised
notice.
Customs' Response: Inasmuch as the proposed regulations provide for
disclosure as authorized by law, Customs does not believe that such
disclosure is inconsistent with either the NAFTA or the GATT TRIPs
Agreement. The border enforcement provisions of these Agreements
contemplate the prosecution of suspect importations by IPR owners. To
that end, each Agreement provides for the disclosure of information to
IPR owners sufficient to substantiate claims of infringement. Article
1718 of the NAFTA and Article 57 of the GATT TRIPs Agreement do not, as
the commenter suggests, give blanket nondisclosure benefit to the
importer. Customs believes that the references in these Agreements to
the ``protection of confidential information'' require only that the
disclosure of information comply with the respective signatory party's
laws and regulations regarding disclosure. For the reasons discussed
above in the previous response, the proposed regulations have been
issued pursuant to valid statutory authority.
Accordingly, Customs will not withdraw its revised notice.
3. The 30-day Notification Period Does Not Allow the IPR Owner To Act
Expeditiously
Comment: Another commenter urged that the 30-day notification
period should be reduced to 10 days so that an IPR owner could be in a
position to act more expeditiously, and recommends that Customs change
the time period accordingly.
Customs' Response: Aside from the permissive disclosure situation
described above, Customs believes that the 30 business day time limit
for required disclosure of importation information affords IPR owners
sufficient time to act expeditiously. Customs must consider the
workload placed on its employees and regulate manageable time frames
for their compliance with the relevant disclosure rules.
Accordingly, Customs will not change the time period as proposed in
Secs. 133.22(b), 133.23(c), 133.42(d), and 133.43(b).
4. Disclosure Should Include Country of Origin Information
Comment: Several comments were received noting that country of
origin information should be included in the revision of 19 CFR 133.43,
as it was in the other sections revised.
Customs' Response: Customs agrees that the regulations should be
consistent and has added country of origin information as information
to be disclosed under 19 CFR 133.43.
5. Disclosure Should Include the Date(s) of Importation, the Port of
Entry, and a Description of the Merchandise
Comment: In the Background section of the revised Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking Customs indicated that certain information, namely
dates of importation, port of entry and description of the merchandise,
would be included in every notification as a matter of course. One
commenter requested that these items be specifically set forth to
insure that this information is released.
Customs' Response: Customs agrees and has added this information
concerning the dates of importation, port of entry, and a description
of the merchandise as information to be disclosed under
Secs. 133.22(b), 133.23(c), 133.42(d), and 133.43(b).
6. Disclosure Should Include the Identity of the Importer
Comment: Comments were received requesting that the identity of the
importer be provided under 19 CFR 133.22 when goods are detained for
suspicion of trademark counterfeiting. These commenters argue that such
disclosure would then parallel the release of an importer's identity
under 19 CFR 133.43 when goods are detained for suspicion of copyright
counterfeiting.
Customs' Response: The identity of an importer is provided under
the provisions of 19 CFR 133.43 (suspected copyright counterfeiting)
because of the broad bonding provisions contained in that section. The
bonding requirements applicable to goods detained for suspicion of
trademark counterfeiting are much narrower, only providing security for
samples. Although the NAFTA and the GATT TRIPs Agreement each provides
that the competent authorities may require such a security for all
detentions of goods suspected of IPR infringement, Customs has not
implemented such a requirement for trademarked goods.
Customs' objective of making timely and accurate determinations on
counterfeiting requires that the unauthorized application of a mark be
readily ascertained. To that end, Customs has determined that the
identity of the manufacturer is important because the mark is typically
applied by the manufacturer. Until Customs institutes a similar, broad
bonding procedure for suspected counterfeit trademark goods, it has
decided that the importer's identity shall not be released at the time
of detention.
7. IPR Owners Should Be Allowed To Retain Samples Sent for Inspection,
and Customs Should Clarify Its Position Regarding the Testing of
Samples, Since Testing May Result in the Destruction of a Sample
Comment: A comment was received suggesting that IPR owners be
permitted to retain samples forwarded by Customs for examination.
Another comment noted that certain testing may result in the
destruction or partial destruction of a sample, and requested
clarification of Customs position on the testing of samples.
Customs' Response: Customs recognizes that testing may be required
to determine whether a sample bears a counterfeit trademark or
constitutes a piratical copy. Customs' intention is to allow for the
manipulation of samples provided to IPR owners, including the
[[Page 11999]]
destruction of the sample if required during the testing procedure.
However, Customs has determined that samples may not be retained by IPR
owners, and Customs will require either the return of samples, the
remains of tested sample, or assurances to Customs' satisfaction that
the article has been destroyed. Accordingly, the regulations as set
forth below have been modified to provide that where Customs has
provided sample merchandise to an IPR owner for examination, testing,
or any other use in pursuit of a related private civil remedy, the IPR
owner must return the sample to Customs upon demand or at the
conclusion of the examination, testing, or use in pursuit of a related
private civil remedy. In the event the sample is damaged, destroyed, or
lost while in the custody of the IPR owner, the owner shall certify
this fact to Customs. The regulations also require that the IPR owner
post a bond conditioned to indemnify the importer and to hold harmless
Customs, in the event that the sample is destroyed.
In the August 23, 1993, notice of proposed rulemaking, and the July
14, 1995, revised notice of proposed rulemaking on these regulations,
Customs proposed furnishing samples of imported goods bearing
trademarks to IPR owners to determine whether infringement has
occurred. Customs has determined that in some instances samples may be
furnished to IPR owners under the proposed rules where subsequently it
is determined that no infringement has occurred. It logically flows
that in some of these instances importers may suffer damages as a
result of the furnishing of samples to the IPR owner (for example,
samples may be lost or destroyed). To provide protection to importers
in this eventuality, Customs has determined to require IPR owners to
provide Customs with a bond as a precondition to obtaining samples.
Specifically, Customs has revised Secs. 133.22(c), 133.23a(d),
133.42(e), and 133.43(b) and (c) to require that a bond be posted by
the IPR owner to indemnify the importer and hold-harmless Customs from
any loss or damage resulting from Customs furnishing a sample to the
IPR owner, in the event that the sample merchandise provided is
subsequently determined not to bear an infringing mark.
Conclusion
After analysis of the comments and further consideration of the
matter, Customs has decided to adopt the proposed amendments to part
133 of the Customs Regulations with the modifications discussed above
in the analysis of comments.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
Based on the reasons set forth above and because the regulatory
burden falls primarily on Customs to notify IPR holders of infringing
imported merchandise, pursuant to the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), it is certified that the
amendments to the regulations will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, the
amendments are not subject to the regulatory analysis or other
requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Executive Order 12866
This document does not meet the criteria for a ``significant
regulatory action'' as defined in E.O. 12866.
List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 133
Copyright, Counterfeit goods, Customs duties and inspection,
Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Restricted
merchandise, Seizures and forfeitures, Trademarks, Trade names.
Amendments to the Regulations
For the reasons stated above, part 133 of the Customs Regulations
(19 CFR part 133), is amended as set forth below:
PART 133--TRADEMARKS, TRADE NAMES, AND COPYRIGHTS
1. The general authority citation for part 133 is revised to read
as follows:
Authority: 17 U.S.C. 101, 601, 602, 603; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1624; 31
U.S.C. 9701.
* * * * *
2. Section 133.22 is amended by revising the section heading;
revising the text of paragraph (a); redesignating paragraphs (b) and
(c) as paragraphs (d) and (e); adding new paragraphs (b) and (c); and
revising the heading of newly redesignated paragraph (d). The additions
and revisions are to read as follows:
Sec. 133.22 Procedure on detention of articles subject to restriction.
(a) In general. Articles subject to the restrictions of Sec. 133.21
shall be detained for 30 days from the date on which the merchandise is
presented for Customs examination. The importer shall be notified of
the decision to detain within 5 days of the decision that such
restrictions apply. The importer may, during the 30-day period,
establish that any of the circumstances described in Sec. 133.21(c) are
applicable. Extensions of the 30-day time period may be freely granted
for good cause shown.
(b) Notice of detention and disclosure of information. From the
time merchandise is presented for Customs examination until the time a
notice of detention is issued Customs may disclose to the owner of the
trademark or trade name any of the following information in order to
obtain assistance in determining whether an imported article bears an
infringing trademark or trade name. Customs shall disclose this same
information (if available) to the owner of the trademark or trade name
within 30 days (excluding weekends and holidays) of the date of
detention:
(1) The date of importation;
(2) The port of entry;
(3) A description of the merchandise;
(4) The quantity involved; and
(5) The country of origin of the merchandise.
(c) Samples available to the trademark or trade name owner. At any
time following presentation of the merchandise for Customs examination
but prior to seizure, Customs may provide a sample of the suspect
merchandise to the owner of the trademark or trade name for examination
or testing to assist in determining whether the article imported bears
an infringing trademark or trade name. To obtain a sample under this
section, the trademark/trade name owner must furnish Customs a bond in
the form and amount specified by the port director, conditioned to hold
the United States, its officers and employees, and the importer or
owner of the imported article harmless from any loss or damage
resulting from the furnishing of a sample by Customs to the trademark
owner. Customs may demand the return of the sample at any time. The
owner must return the sample to Customs upon demand or at the
conclusion of the examination or testing. In the event that the sample
is damaged, destroyed, or lost while in the possession of the trademark
or trade name owner, the owner shall, in lieu of return of the sample,
certify to Customs that: ``The sample described as [insert description]
and provided pursuant to 19 CFR 133.22(c) was (damaged/ destroyed/lost)
during examination or testing for trademark infringement.''
(d) Form of notice. * * *
* * * * *
3. Section 133.23a is amended by redesignating paragraph (c) as
paragraph (e); adding new paragraphs (c) and (d); and revising the
heading and removing the first sentence of newly designated paragraph
(e). The additions and revisions are to read as follows:
Sec. 133.23a Articles bearing counterfeit trademarks.
* * * * *
[[Page 12000]]
(c) Notice to trademark owner. When merchandise is seized under
this section, Customs shall disclose to the owner of the trademark the
following information, if available, within 30 days, excluding weekends
and holidays, of the date of the notice of seizure:
(1) The date of importation;
(2) The port of entry;
(3) A description of the merchandise;
(4) The quantity involved;
(5) The name and address of the manufacturer;
(6) The country of origin of the merchandise;
(7) The name and address of the exporter; and
(8) The name and address of the importer.
(d) Samples available to the trademark owner. At any time following
seizure of the merchandise, Customs may provide a sample of the suspect
merchandise to the owner of the trademark for examination, testing, or
other use in pursuit of a related private civil remedy for trademark
infringement. To obtain a sample under this section, the trademark/
trade name owner must furnish Customs a bond in the form and amount
specified by the port director, conditioned to hold the United States,
its officers and employees, and the importer or owner of the imported
article harmless from any loss or damage resulting from the furnishing
of a sample by Customs to the trademark owner. Customs may demand the
return of the sample at any time. The owner must return the sample to
Customs upon demand or at the conclusion of the examination, testing,
or other use in pursuit of a related private civil remedy for trademark
infringement. In the event that the sample is damaged, destroyed, or
lost while in the possession of the trademark owner, the owner shall,
in lieu of return of the sample, certify to Customs that: ``The sample
described as [insert description] and provided pursuant to 19 CFR
133.23a(d) was (damaged/destroyed/lost) during examination, testing, or
other use.''
(e) Failure to make appropriate disposition. * * *
4. Section 133.42 is amended by redesignating paragraph (d) as
paragraph (f) and adding new paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 133.42 Infringing copies or phonorecords.
* * * * *
(d) Disclosure. When merchandise is seized under this section,
Customs shall disclose to the owner of the copyright the following
information, if available, within 30 days, excluding weekends and
holidays, of the date of the notice of seizure:
(1) The date of importation;
(2) The port of entry;
(3) A description of the merchandise;
(4) The quantity involved;
(5) The name and address of the manufacturer;
(6) The country of origin of the merchandise;
(7) The name and address of the exporter; and
(8) The name and address of the importer.
(e) Samples available to the copyright owner. At any time following
seizure of the merchandise, Customs may provide a sample of the suspect
merchandise to the owner of the copyright for examination, testing, or
any other use in pursuit of a related private civil remedy for
copyright infringement. To obtain a sample under this section, the
copyright owner must furnish to Customs a bond in the form and amount
specified by the port director, conditioned to hold the United States,
its officers and employees, and the importer or owner of the imported
article harmless from any loss or damage resulting from the furnishing
of a sample by Customs to the copyright owner. Customs may demand the
return of the sample at any time. The owner must return the sample to
Customs upon demand or at the conclusion of the examination, testing,
or other use in pursuit of a related private civil remedy for copyright
infringement. In the event that the sample is damaged, destroyed, or
lost while in the possession of the copyright owner, the owner shall,
in lieu of return of the sample, certify to Customs that: ``The sample
described as [insert description] provided pursuant to 19 CFR 133.42(e)
was (damaged/destroyed/lost) during examination, testing, or other
use.''
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 133.43, paragraphs (c) and (d) are redesignated as
paragraphs (d) and (e), and paragraph (b) is revised and a new
paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 133.43 Procedure on suspicion of infringing copies.
* * * * *
(b) Notice to copyright owner. If the importer of suspected
infringing copies or phonorecords files a denial as provided in
paragraph (a) of this section, the port director shall furnish to the
copyright owner the following information, if available, within 30
days, excluding weekends and holidays, of the receipt of the importer's
denial:
(1) The date of importation;
(2) The port of entry;
(3) A description of the merchandise;
(4) The quantity involved;
(5) The country of origin of the merchandise; and
(6) Notice that the imported article will be released to the
importer unless, within 30 days from the date of the notice, the
copyright owner files with the port director a written demand for the
exclusion from entry of the detained imported articles.
(c) Samples available to the copyright owner. At any time following
presentation of the merchandise for Customs examination but prior to
seizure, Customs may provide a sample of the suspect merchandise to the
owner of the copyright for examination or testing to assist in
determining whether the article imported is a piratical copy. To obtain
a sample under this section, the copyright owner must furnish Customs a
bond in the form and amount specified by the port director, conditioned
to hold the United States, its officers and employees, and the importer
or owner of the imported article harmless from any loss or damage
resulting from Customs detention or seizure, or the furnishing of a
sample by Customs to the trademark owner, in the event that the
Commissioner of Customs, or his designee, or a federal court determines
that the article does not bear an infringing mark. Customs may demand
the return of the sample at any time. The owner must return the sample
to Customs upon demand or at the conclusion of the examination or
testing. In the event that the sample is damaged, destroyed, or lost
while in the possession of the copyright owner, the owner shall, in
lieu of return of the sample, certify to Customs that: ``The sample
described as [insert description] provided pursuant to 19 CFR 133.43(c)
was (damaged/destroyed/lost) during examination or testing for
copyright infringement.''
* * * * *
Samuel H. Banks,
Acting Commissioner of Customs.
Approved: February 17, 1998.
John P. Simpson,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 98-6183 Filed 3-11-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P