alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19165 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19166 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19167 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19168 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19169 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19170 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19171 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19172 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19173 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19174 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19175 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19176 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19177 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19178 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19179 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19180 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19181 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19182 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19183 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19184 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19185 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19186 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19187 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19188 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19189 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19190 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19191 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19192 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19193 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19194 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19195 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19196 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19197 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19198 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19199 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19200 1992

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19201 1992
Searched for **http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/isab/isab97-5/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/isab/isab97-5/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
(Reap. Dec. 8931)

Entry Nos. 1764; 22; 208.

#### Philstan Trading Co., Ltd. *v.*United States

(Decided July 23, 1957)

*Borden, Kornberg & Borden (Alvin Borden*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

This is an appeal for reappraisement of certain periodicals, entitled “Man’s World,” which were entered at $0.08 per copy, net packed, and appraised at $0.28 per copy, net, packed, Canadian currency.

*595The case has been submitted for decision upon an oral stipulation of fact, entered into at the trial, to the following effect:

> It is agreed that at the time of exportation of the involved periodicals, called “Man’s World,” such or similar periodicals were not freely offered for sale within the meaning of those words in Section 402 (c), (d) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930; and that cost of production represents the proper basis for the appraisement of said merchandise; that this merchandise should be appraised at Canadian dollars 19 cents per copy net packed, instead of as appraised, at 28 cents Canadian net packed, or as invoiced and entered at 8 cents net packed.

Upon the agreed facts, I find cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the periodicals herein and that such value is $0.19 per copy, net packed, Canadian currency.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
OPEN FILE REPORT 2007-1175

Plate 2

Version 1.0

SEATTLE CITY LIMITS

70-90%g

70-90%g

60-70%g

70-90%g

130-190%g

110-130 %g

70-90%g

40-50%g

30-40%g

60-70%g

70-90%g

SEATTLE CITY LIMITS

P

U

G

E

T

S O U N D

130-

190%g

60-70%g

90-110 %g

50-60%g

40-50%g

130-

190%g

20-30%g

70-90%g

90-110%g

50-60%g

P

U

G

E

T

S

O

U N D

110-

130

%g

122°15'

122°15'

122°20'

122°20'

122°25'

122°25'

47°40'

47°40'

47°35'

47°35'

47°30'

47°30'

1 Hz Spectral Acceleration

with 5% Probability of

Exceedance in 50 Years

%g 190

130

110

90

70

60

50

40

30

20

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

SEISMIC HAZARD MAP OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

1 HZ SPECTRAL ACCELERATION WITH 5% PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE IN 50 YEARS

By

Arthur D. Frankel, William J. Stephenson. David L. Carver, Robert A. Williams, Jack K. Odum, and Susan Rhea

2007

Any use of trade, firm, or product names in this publication is for descriptive

purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Digital files available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/XXXX

Projection Washington State Plane North; FIPS Zone 4601; NAD 83

Base maps from National Geographic TOPO! 2001

Originally from USGS 24,000 Topographic Basemaps:

Shilshole Bay, Seattle North, Kirkland,

Duwamish Head, Seattle South, Mercer Island,

Vashon, Des Moines, and Renton

last known revision for all basemaps 1992

SCALE 1:25 000

0 0.5 1 2 3 MILE

0 0.5 1 2 3 KILOMETER
## NO. 29619
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
JAMES D. RATHBUN, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant,

vs. ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS, STATE OF HAWAI # I,

Respondent/Respondent-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (JR. NO. 1DAA-08-0013; Original Case No. 08-04532)
ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Duffy, J., for the court ) 1 

## Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant James D. Rathbun’s application for writ of certiorari, filed on September 20, 2010, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, November 1, 2010.
FOR THE COURT: /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. Associate Justice Timothy I. MacMasterfor petitioner/petitionerappellant on the application Girard D. Lau, Deputy Attorney General,for respondent/respondentappellee on the response

C o n s i d e r e d b y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C
. J
. , N a k a y a m a , A c o b a , a n d D u f f y , J J
. a n d 1 C i r c u i t J u d g e N i s h i m u r a , a s s i g n e d b y r e a s o n o f v a c a n c y . 

## Electronically Filed Supreme Court 29619 01-NOV-2010 11:55 AM
No. 45120.

#### Protests 773775-G, etc., of Premier Peat Moss Corp’n (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of peat moss of the same character as that passed upon in *Peat Import Corp.*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 181, C. D. 319). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1685 was therefore sustained.
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Eastern Division 

NICHOLAS J. BAEHR,

Plaintiff,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

CASE NO. C2-11-1076

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

COMMISSIONER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARK R. ABEL

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have

been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

Decision by Court. A decision has been rendered by the Court without a hearing or trial.

Pursuant to the ORDER filed November 29, 2012, JUDGMENT is hereby entered

for the Defendant. This case is DISMISSED.

Date: November 29, 2012 JOHN P. HEHMAN, CLERK

/S/ Andy F. Quisumbing 

(By) Andy F. Quisumbing

 Courtroom Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:11-cv-01076-EAS-MRA Doc #: 21 Filed: 11/29/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 1 April 2004

in Case C-286/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale de Treviso): Bellio F.lli against Prefettura di Treviso (1)

(‘Agriculture - Animal health - Protection measures with regard to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies - Use of animal proteins in animal feed’)

(2004/C 106/21)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-286/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale di Treviso (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Bellio F.lli and Prefettura di Treviso – on the interpretation of Council Decision 2000/766/EC of 4 December 2000 concerning certain protection measures with regard to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and the feeding of animal protein (OJ 2000 L 306, p. 32) and Commission Decision 2001/9/EC of 29 December 2000 concerning control measures required for the implementation of Decision 2000/766 (OJ 2001 L 2, p. 32) – the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 April 2004, in which it has ruled:

----

(1)OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002

----
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with
the Annual Report of KT High-Tech Marketing, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George Henschke,
Interim Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies
with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained
in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: February 16, 2018 | By: | /s/ George Henschke                
|----------------------- | --- | -----------------------------------
|                        |     | George Henschke                    
|                        |     | Interim Principal Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to KT High-Tech Marketing, Inc. and will be retained by KT High-Tech Marketing, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 25, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 20549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7910]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Revocations

    The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice that the 
following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been revoked 
pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. chapter 
409) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing 
of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR Part 515, effective on 
the corresponding date shown below:

    License Number: 017096N.
    Name: Aero Costa International, Inc.
    Address: 22010 S. Wilmington Ave., Ste. 208, Carson, CA 90745.
    Date Revoked: April 6, 2007.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License Number: 019499N.
    Name: Anmi Air & Sea Transportation, Inc.
    Address: 8066 Northwest 66th Street, Miami, FL 33166.
    Date Revoked: April 13, 2007.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License Number: 019900N.
    Name: Atlantic Freight Services Inc.
    Address: PMB 519 RD 19, Guaynabo, PR 00966-2700.
    Date Revoked: April 13, 2007.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License Number: 016783N.
    Name: C & A Shipping, Inc.
    Address: 100 Menlo Park, Ste. 326, Edison, NJ 08827.
    Date Revoked: April 12, 2007.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License Number: 018861N.
    Name: Central American Shipping Agency Inc.
    Address: 55 West Main Street, Freehold, NJ 07728.
    Date Revoked: April 7, 2007.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License Number: 003706NF.
    Name: Chesapeake Bay Shipping and Warehousing, Inc.
    Address: 3914 Vero Road, Baltimore, MD 21227.
    Date Revoked: February 12, 2007.
    Reason: Failed to maintain valid bonds.
    License Number: 019025N.
    Name: Ever-OK International Forwarding Co., Ltd.
    Address: 430 South Garfield Ave., Ste. 403, Alhambra, CA 91801.
    Date Revoked: April 15, 2007.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License Number: 017269N.
    Name: Fastmark Corporation.
    Address: 7206 NW 84th Avenue, Miami, FL 33166.
    Date Revoked: April 11, 2007.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License Number: 010854NF.
    Name: Logistics Service (U.S.A.) Co., Inc.
    Address: 55 Second Street, 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105.
    Date Revoked: April 9, 2007.
    Reason: Surrendered license voluntarily.

    License Number: 017159N.
    Name: Nolton Freight Logistics, Inc.
    Address: 520 Carson Plaza Ct., Ste., 212, Carson, CA 90746.
    Date Revoked: April 12, 2007.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License Number: 014569N.
    Name: RCS Freight International, Inc.
    Address: 20410 Gramercy Place, Torrance, CA 90501.
    Date Revoked: April 12, 2007.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

Sandra L. Kusumoto,
Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.
 [FR Doc. E7-7910 Filed 4-24-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4026 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHATAN MAULTSBY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (CR-00-50)

Submitted: July 25, 2006 Decided: July 31, 2006

Before MOTZ, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Chatan Maultsby appeals from the district court’s order

revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-four

months of imprisonment. Maultsby’s attorney has filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), representing

that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but

raising the issue of whether the district court erred in imposing

Maultsby’s sentence. Although he was advised of his right to file

a pro se supplemental brief, Maultsby has not done so. Finding no

meritorious issues and no error by the district court, we affirm

the revocation order and the sentence imposed.

In light of Maultsby’s admission that he violated the

terms of his supervision, we find no error by the district court in

revoking his supervised release. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3)

(West 2000 & Supp. 2005); United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638,

642-43 (4th Cir. 1995). Maultsby challenges the length of the

sentence and supervised release term. The twenty-four-month term

of incarceration imposed by the district court was within the

advisory guideline range and was reasonable. See United States v.

Green, 436 F.3d 449 (4th Cir. 2006) (No. 05-4270); 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 3583(e)(3) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Manual § 7B1.4(a). The twenty-four month term of supervised

release imposed following the revocation sentence was within the
- 3 -

statutory maximum and was not “plainly unreasonable.” 18 U.S.C.

§§ 3583(b), (h); 3742(a)(4) (2000).

In accordance with Anders, we have independently reviewed

the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order revoking

Maultsby’s supervised release and imposing a twenty-four-month

sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in

writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United

States for further review. If the client requests that a petition

be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be

frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to

withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a

copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
No. 65696.

#### John H. Faunce Phila., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/17832 (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of parts of a metallurgical blast furnace in chief value of metal the same as those the subject of *John H. Faunce Phila., Inc.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 34, C.D. 2149), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
RCRAREVISION CHECKLIST 17 Q Research and Development Permits 

# • FEDERAL REOUIREMENT FEDERAL RCRA CITATION ANALOGOUS STATE CITATION STATE ANALOG IS: MORE BROADEQUIV- STRIN- ER IN ALENT GENT SCOPE PART 270 - EPAADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAM: THE HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT PROGRAM SUBPART B - PERMITAPPLICATION GENERALAPPLICATION REOUIREMENTS WAC 173-303 

### t permit application 270,10{a) -801(7) & 800 

## x SUBPART F - SPECIALFORMS OF PERMITS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION PERMITS 

# •

• t R&D permits 270,65 -809(3) 

## x
121 STAT. 1360 PUBLIC LAW 110–132—DEC. 6, 2007 

Public Law 110–132 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To reauthorize the African Elephant Conservation Act and the Rhinoceros and 

Tiger Conservation Act of 1994. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Multinational Species Conservation Funds Reauthorization Act of 2007’’. 

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION AND AMENDMENT OF AFRICAN ELEPHANT 

CONSERVATION ACT. 

(a) NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF PROJECT PROPOSAL.—Section 

2101(c) of the African Elephant Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4211(c)) 

is amended by striking ‘‘and to each country within which the 

project is proposed to be conducted’’. 

(b) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—Section 2306(b) of the African 

Elephant Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4245(b)) is amended by 

striking ‘‘$80,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$100,000’’. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 2306(a) of the 

African Elephant Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4245(a)) is amended 

by striking ‘‘2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007’’ and 

inserting ‘‘2007 through 2012’’. 

SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION AND AMENDMENT OF RHINOCEROS AND 

TIGER CONSERVATION ACT OF 1994. 

(a) NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF PROJECT PROPOSAL.—Section 5(c) 

of the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 

5304(c)) is amended in the third sentence by striking ‘‘, to the 

Administrator, and to each country within which the project is 

to be conducted’’ and inserting ‘‘and to the Administrator’’. 

(b) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—Section 10(b) of the Rhinoceros 

and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 5306(b)) is amended 

by striking ‘‘$80,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$100,000’’. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 10(a) of the 

Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 5306(a)) 

16 USC 4201 

note. 

Multinational 

Species 

Conservation 

Funds 

Reauthorization 

Act of 2007. 

Dec. 6, 2007 

[H.R. 50] 


jbridges on POFP91QD1 with PUBLIC LAWS
PUBLIC LAW 110–132—DEC. 6, 2007 121 STAT. 1361 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 50: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 110–244 (Comm. on Natural Resources). 

SENATE REPORTS: No. 110–211 (Comm. on Environment and Public Works). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007): 

July 23, considered and passed House. 

Nov. 16, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

is amended by striking ‘‘2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 

2007’’ and inserting ‘‘2007 through 2012’’. 

Approved December 6, 2007. 


jbridges on POFP91QD1 with PUBLIC LAWS
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 538 

To authorize representation by the Senate Legal Counsel in the case of 

Rockefeller v. Bingaman, et al. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 21, 2006 

Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. REID) submitted the following resolution; 

which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To authorize representation by the Senate Legal Counsel 

in the case of Rockefeller v. Bingaman, et al. 

Whereas, in the case of Rockefeller v. Bingaman, et al., Case 

No. 06–CV–0198 (D.N.M.), pending in the United States 

District Court for the District of New Mexico, the plaintiff has named as defendants Senator Jeff Bingaman and 

the United States Senate; and 

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the 

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. 288b(a) and 

288c(a)(1), the Senate may direct its counsel to defend 

the Senate and Members, officers, and employees of the 

Senate in civil actions relating to their official responsibilities: Now, therefore, be it 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

SRES 538 ATS 

1 Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is author2 ized to represent Senator Jeff Bingaman and the United 

3 States Senate in the case of Rockefeller v. Bingaman, et 

4 al. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9349 

To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to provide that required country-of-origin 

labeling for any agricultural product packaged in a can shall be on 

the front label or top of such can, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 13, 2024 

Mr. HARDER of California (for himself and Mr. VAN ORDEN) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to provide that required 

country-of-origin labeling for any agricultural product 

packaged in a can shall be on the front label or top 

of such can, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Consumer 

5 Awareness of National Source Act’’ or the ‘‘American 

6 CANS Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 9349 IH

1 SEC. 2. METHOD OF NOTIFICATION OF COUNTRY OF ORI2 GIN OF AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT PACK3 AGED IN A CAN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 304(b) of the Tariff Act 

5 of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1304(b)) is amended by inserting after 

6 the first sentence the following: ‘‘In the case of such an 

7 article that is an agricultural product (as defined in sec8 tion 207 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946) pack9 aged in a can, the marking required under this subsection 

10 shall appear on the front label of the can or be stamped, 

11 embossed, or printed on the top of the can.’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

13 subsection (a) shall only apply to agricultural products im14 ported on or after the date that is 18 months after the 

15 date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
No. 46310.

#### Protest 8458-K, etc., of McClintock Stern Co. et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of ginger root, not preserved or candied, unground, the same as that the subject of *Wilson*v. *United States*(28 C. C. P. A. 63, C. A. D. 126). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1768 was therefore sustained.