• HQ H030606
• Aug 12, 2008

• Type : Restricted Merchandise • HTSUS :

ENF-4-02-OT:RR:BSTC:IPR H030606 AML

Mr. John M. Peterson
Mr. George W. Thompson
Neville Peterson, LLC
17 State Street – 19th Floor
New York, NY 10004

RE: Request for Ruling regarding the Admissibility of Switchblade Knives

Dear Messrs. Peterson and Thompson:

This is in reply to your letter dated June 6, 2008, in which you requested a ruling, pursuant to part 177.2 (19 CFR Part 177.2) of the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Regulations, regarding the admissibility and prospective importation of commercial samples of switchblade knives, parts and components thereof, and whether, and under what circumstances, switchblade knives manufactured in the United States may be exported to foreign countries.

FACTS:

Your client is a knife manufacturer which proposes to import knives considered to be switchblade knives under the relevant statutes and regulations “only for sale . . . to United States military agencies, members of the armed forces, State militias, law enforcement employees of State and municipal governments, and state agencies authorized” to procure such articles. Citing relevant sections of the Switchblade Knife Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1241-1245, you contend that your client’s prospective importation of switchblade knives, provided that the knives are subsequently sold or distributed in anticipation of, solicitation for, or pursuant to a contract with the United States Armed Forces (hereinafter “Armed Forces”), should be permissible and lawful. It is your position that the relevant regulation(s) “do not address importations of switchblade knives to be used as samples submitted with offers responding to solicitations for acquisition by the Armed Forces, nor does it deal with switchblades imported in anticipation of receiving a lawful order for the Armed Forces.” Citing the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FARs), you contend that the provision of samples is often a condition precedent to contracting with the U.S. Government for acquisition purposes, and the importation of such samples in response to a solicitation for bids would precede the formation of a contract for sale of the goods. Thus, you contend, “to the extent the Customs regulations require that a contract already have been awarded before imports are permitted, they would preclude a bidder from providing samples that the Armed Forces may require prior to awarding a contract.” You submit that “the importation of switchblade knives is lawful prior to the award of an Armed Forces contract, whether or not the imported knife is intended for use as a sample for solicitation of an order, or is intended to be placed in inventory pursuant to such a sale.”

Secondly, you inquire whether, and under what circumstances, parts and components which are to be used in the manufacture of switchblade knives in the U.S. for sale to authorized purchasers may be imported. It is your position that there are no restrictions or prohibitions regarding the importation of parts and components of switchblade knives set forth in the Switchblade Knife Act. You contend that the regulatory proscriptions concerning the importation of switchblade parts and components impose requirements which are absent from, or are contrary to, the statute they are intended to implement. Therefore, you contend the regulations proscribing the importation of parts and components of switchblade knives, 19 CFR Parts 12.95(a) and 12.95(a)(3), are without legal basis.

Finally, you assert that there are no prohibitions against the manufacture of switchblade knives in the United States and the exportation of those switchblades “to countries where the Switchblade Knife Act has no effect.”

ISSUES:

Under what circumstances can switchblade knives be imported into the United States for sale to lawful markets in the United States, i.e., to the Armed Forces, and what procedures must be followed to effect such imports?

a. Can a party preparing to bid on an Armed Forces contract for the procurement of switchblade knives import knives for use as samples to be submitted in response to a solicitation for procurement? If so, can the importer reference the solicitation for purposes of preparing the declaration required under 19 CFR Part 12.99(a)(1)(ii)?

Under what circumstances can switchblade knife parts and components be imported into the United States for purposes of producing switchblade knives for sale to lawful markets in the United States, and what procedures must be followed to effect such imports?

Under what circumstances can switchblade knives manufactured domestically be lawfully exported from the United States to foreign countries?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Prefatorily, we address the contention that the CBP regulations implementing the Switchblade Knife Act (viz. 19 CFR Part 12.95(a) which defines “switchblade knife” to include “any imported knife, or components thereof . . .” and 19 CFR Part 12.95(a)(3) which proscribes the importation of parts and components (“unassembled knife kits or knife handles without blades which, when fully assembled with added blades, springs, or other parts, are knives which open automatically by hand pressure applied to a button or device[.]”) of switchblade knives are without legal authority and should not be enforced.

The relevant CBP regulations were implemented in 1971, following notice and comment, via Treasury Decision (“T.D.”) 71-243, and the Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on September 13, 1971. See Final Rule, 36 FR 18859, Sept. 23, 1971.

CBP announced its proposed intention to amend the regulations via Federal Register notice on August 18, 1989. See 54 FR 34186 of the same date. In the introductory comments in the proposed rule, CBP (then “Customs”) acknowledged the need, based upon importations then occurring, for amendment of the regulations with regard to parts and components of switchblade knives, stating that:

In addition to the knives themselves, Customs is also concerned with blades, handles, and kits which are entered separately into the United States where they are assembled into a finished product which would have been denied entry had any been attempted. To prevent such actions, Customs has issued several decisions which include these components within the prohibitions of the Switchblade Knife Act. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 54 FR 34186.

The amended regulations were finalized in 1990, again following notice and comment, via T.D 90-50, and were published in the Federal Register on July 10, 1990. See 55 FR 28192, July 10, 1990. The notice included the following responses to comments received in reply to the notice of proposed rulemaking:

Several comments were written in the apparent belief that Customs was imposing restrictions on switchblade knives on its own initiative and not in response to congressional direction. Because the regulations are based on the legislative mandate, a consideration of the propriety of such regulations is unnecessary. 55 FR 28192.

It was through the amendment of the regulations that the proscription against importation of parts and components of switchblades was created. The Final Rule justifies the proscription thusly:

Comment. Seventeen comments objected to Customs including Balisong knives, butterfly knives, gravity knives and parts for these knives within the definition of "switchblade knife". The commenters stated that the inclusion of these articles was an improper expansion of the Switchblade Knife Act.

Response. Customs has consistently maintained that the congressional intent in enacting the Switchblade Knife Act was to prohibit the importation and interstate transportation of all types of knives which shared the characteristics of concealability and the ability to be quickly and easily converted into a weapon. This position has been upheld in judicial decisions (see Taylor v. U.S., 848 F.2d 715 (6th Cir. 1988)). By expressly including identifiable categories of prohibited knives, as well as providing notice that the prohibition extends to parts and unassembled knives, Customs is clarifying its position for the public, not expanding the scope of the Act (italicized emphasis added). 55 FR 28192.

It is beyond cavil that CBP is authorized by statute to promulgate regulations necessary to fulfill its duties to collect the revenue and protect the borders. See Mead Corp. v. United States, 185 F.3d 1304, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 1999):

The United States Code has specifically given Customs the power to promulgate regulations. See 19 U.S.C. § 1502(a) (1994). Where, as in Haggar, Customs issues a regulation under the procedural rigors dictated by the Administrative Procedure Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 553 (1994), that regulation has the enforceability of law. See Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 295, 60 L. Ed. 2d 208, 99 S. Ct. 1705 (1979); Bernard Schwartz, Administrative Law 182-83 (3d ed. 1991). A regulation, however, must first undergo a notice and comment period during which the interested public can “participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments.” 5 U.S.C. § 553(c). Moreover, even after promulgation, a regulation is subject to petitions in which interested persons may seek to amend or repeal the new policy. See 5 U.S.C. § 553(e). A regulation that endures this process carries the full weight of Customs’ rulemaking authority. See Parker v. Office of Personnel Management, 974 F.2d 164, 974 F.2d 164, 166 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (recognizing that by enacting regulations, agencies put a “gloss” on their statutory interpretations). A regulation thus represents a reasoned and informed articulation of Customs' statutory interpretation, which serves to “clarify the rights and obligations of importers.” Haggar, 119 S. Ct. at 1398.

Similar arguments regarding the breadth of the regulations implementing enforcement of the Switchblade Knife Act were rejected in United States v. Murphree, 783 F.2d 605, 609-10 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 839, 107 S. Ct. 142, 93 L. Ed. 2d 84 (1986):

It is certainly within the authority of those enabling statutes to specify those laws which designate items which cannot be imported (e.g. 19 C.F.R. § 12.97). The issue, however, is not whether it was within the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to promulgate these regulations, but rather whether they define for the courts, in this instance, what is contrary to law under 18 U.S.C. § 545 and 19 C.F.R. § 12.97. See, Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 309 n. 40, 60 L. Ed. 2d 208, 99 S. Ct. 1705 (1979).

In order to do so they must be a “substantive rule” or a “legislative-type rule” as described by the Supreme Court in Chrysler at 301-03. Such rules must affect individual rights and obligations, be rooted in a grant of quasi-legislative authority by Congress and subject to congressional limitations, and conform with any procedural requirements imposed. Id. United States v. Murphree, 783 F.2d 605, 609 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1986).

See also, Taylor v. McManus, 661 F. Supp. 11, 13 (E.D. Tenn. 1986) (“Plaintiff originally claimed that the Secretary's regulations were invalid in that the regulations impermissibly expand the definition of a switchblade beyond that found in the Switchblade Knife Act. However, citing United States of America v. Murphree, 783 F.2d 605 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 839, 93 L. Ed. 2d 84, 107 S. Ct. 142 (1986), the Court ruled that the regulations were valid.”) See also, United States v. Nelsen, 859 F.2d 1318, 1319 (8th Cir. Minn. 1988) (“Previous constitutional challenges to the [Switchblade Knife] Act have received little approval in other circuits.) See Crowley Cutlery Company v. United States, 849 F.2d 273 (7th Cir. 1988) (criticizing the same substantive due process arguments made in the present case); Bingham, Ltd. v. Meese, 817 F.2d 98 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (summarily rejecting constitutional arguments against the Act).

Thus, CBP appropriately exercised its rulemaking authority vis-à-vis the statute at issue. Given the legislative intent and history of the Switchblade Knife Act as well as the notice and comment periods afforded prior to both the creation of the regulations in 1971 and amendment thereof in 1990, CBP properly implemented regulations guiding enforcement of the Switchblade Knife Act. By proscribing the importation of switchblade parts and components, CBP closed a loophole in the statute. Therefore, we find your contentions that the CBP regulations implementing the Switchblade Knife Act (specifically with regard to the inclusion of parts, components and unassembled kits in the statute’s proscription) are unenforceable to be without merit. As you are aware, the Switchblade Knife Act at 15 U.S.C. § 1242 prohibits the importation of switchblade knives and § 1243 extends the prohibition to jurisdictions within any Territory or possession of the United States. 15 U.S.C. § 1244 enumerates the exceptions to the general prohibition and provides in relevant part that: Sections 1242 and 1243 of this title shall not apply to-- (1) any common carrier or contract carrier, with respect to any switchblade knife shipped, transported, or delivered for shipment in interstate commerce in the ordinary course of business;

(2) the manufacture, sale, transportation, distribution, possession, or introduction into interstate commerce, of switchblade knives pursuant to contract with the Armed Forces;

(3) the Armed Forces or any member or employee thereof acting in the performance of his duty[.] * * *

Before considering the issue of whether the CBP regulations permit the importation of switchblade knives other than pursuant to a existing contract with the Armed Forces, we note that, by their terms, the relevant FARs appear, prima facie, to discourage the requirement of samples in the Federal bidding process. See Subpart 14.202-4 (48 CFR Part 14.202-4), captioned “Bid samples”, which provides in relevant part that: (a) Policy.

(1) Bidders shall not be required to furnish bid samples unless there are characteristics of the product that cannot be described adequately in the specification or purchase description. * * * (b) When to use. The use of bid samples would be appropriate for products that must be suitable from the standpoint of balance, facility of use, general “feel,” color, pattern, or other characteristics that cannot be described adequately in the specification. However, when more than a minor portion of the characteristics of the product cannot be adequately described in the specification, products should be acquired by two-step sealed bidding or negotiation, as appropriate.

(c) Justification. The reasons why acceptable products cannot be acquired without the submission of bid samples shall be set forth in the contract file, except where the submission is required by the formal specifications (Federal, Military, or other) applicable to the acquisition. (Italicized emphasis in original.) * * * The above-cited language unambiguously indicates that samples should be used only in instances in which the characteristics (“balance, facility of use, general ‘feel’”, etc.) of the product being acquired are a necessary part of the acquisition process. While switchblade knives may differ in superficial characteristics, their basic design and function do not change. Further, while there may be certain characteristics of a product required by a solicitation for bid (such as a previously unspecified metal of a certain type or hardness, length, weight, and the like), we believe that such requirements can be described in writing or via schematic drawing. Thus, we do not concur with the contention that the provision of switchblade samples is a mandatory requirement of the Federal acquisition process; the FARs set forth above indicate the contrary. It is conceivable that sample switchblade knives may be required as part of the Federal acquisition process. In response to your questions in this regard (i.e., under what circumstances sample switchblade knives can be imported into the United States for sale to lawful markets in the United States, including to the Armed Forces, and what procedures must be followed to effect such imports) we refer to the following statement in the 1971 Final Rule regarding the certification procedures set forth in 19 CFR Part 12.99:

2. Provisions appear in section 12.99 of the adopted regulations to detail the terms, content and manner of execution of declarations required for permitted importations pursuant to Armed Forces contract, by an Armed Forces Branch, member, or employee or by one-armed persons, and to authorize a means of Customs verification of declared statements and other details of declarations. 36 FR 18859.

The relevant CBP regulations, 19 CFR parts 12.98 and 12.99, restate the exemptions set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 1244 and detail the information required to substantiate the Armed Forces exemption, respectively. 19 CFR Part 12.98 (which corresponds to 15 U.S.C. § 1244(3), set forth above) provides in pertinent part:

Importations permitted by statutory exceptions.

The importation of switchblade knives is permitted by 15 U.S.C. § 1244, when:

(a) Imported pursuant to contract with a branch of the Armed Forces of the United States;

(b) Imported by a branch of the Armed Forces of the United States or any member or employee thereof acting in the performance of his duty[.]

19 CFR Part 12.99 sets forth “Procedures for permitted entry” and provides, in pertinent part:

(a) Declaration required. The entry of switchblade knives, the importation of which is permitted under § 12.98 shall be accompanied by a declaration, in duplicate, of the importer or consignee stating the facts of the import transaction as follows:

(1) Importation pursuant to Armed Forces contract. (i) The names of the contracting Armed Forces branch and its supplier; (ii) The specific contract relied upon identified by its date, number, or other contract designation; and (iii) A description of the kind or type of knife imported, the quantity entered, and the aggregate entered value of the importation.

(2) Importation by a branch, member, or employee of the Armed Forces. (i) The name of the Armed Forces branch by or for the account of which entry is made or the branch of the importing member or employee acting in performance of duty; and (ii) The description, quantity, and aggregate entered value of the importation. (b) Attachments to declaration. Details for purposes of a declaration required under paragraph (a) of this section may be furnished by reference in the declaration to attachment of the original or copy of the contract or other documentation which contains the information.

(c) Execution of declaration. Declarations required by paragraph (a) of this section shall be executed as follows:

(1) Contract supplier; Armed Forces branch; member or employee. Declarations made under paragraph (a) or (b) of § 12.98 shall affirm that facts and data furnished are declared on knowledge, information, or belief of a signing officer, partner, or authorized representative of an importing contract supplier or of a commissioned officer, contracting officer, or employee authorized to represent an Armed Forces importing branch. The signature to a declaration shall appear over the declarant’s printed or typewritten name, his title or rank, and the identity of the contract supplier or Armed Forces branch he represents or in which he has membership or employment. * * *

(d) Verification of declared information. The importer, consignee, or declarant of knives permitted entry under Sec. 12.98 upon request shall furnish Customs additional documentary evidence from an Armed Forces branch or other relevant source as Customs officers may require in order to:

(1) Verify declared statements;

(2) Resolve differences pertaining to quantity, description, value, or other discrepancy disclosed by the importation, entry, or related documentation;

(3) Establish the declarant's authority to act; or

(4) Authenticate a signature.

In Alaska Trojan P'ship v. Gutierrez, 425 F.3d 620, 628 (9th Cir. Alaska 2005), the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit stated, with regard to the interpretation of agency regulations that:

“In ascertaining the plain meaning of [a] statute, the court must look to the particular statutory language at issue, as well as the language and design of the statute as a whole.” McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 139, 114 L. Ed. 2d 194, 111 S. Ct. 1737 (1991) (quoting K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291, 100 L. Ed. 2d 313, 108 S. Ct. 1811 (1988)) (alteration in original). When a statute or regulation defines a term, that definition controls, and the court need not look to the dictionary or common usage. Compare F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 476, 127 L. Ed. 2d 308, 114 S. Ct. 996 (1994) (“In the absence of such a definition, we construe a statutory term in accordance with its ordinary or natural meaning.”). An agency’s interpretation of a regulation must “conform with the wording and purpose of the regulation.” Public Citizen Inc. v. Mineta, 343 F.3d 1159, 1166 (9th Cir. 2003).

We believe that the reasonable interpretation of the language of 19 CFR Part 12.98, especially in light of the distinction between subparts 12.98(a) and (b) which specify that the exemption applies to importations made both “pursuant to a contract” with a branch of the Armed Forces (12.98(a)), and those made “by a branch of the Armed Forces of the United States or any member or employee thereof acting in the performance of his duty” (12.98(b)), is that the provisions in Part 12.98(b) contemplate and are intended to include the importations about which you inquire: importations for which there is no active contract with the Armed Forces governing the importation. The terms “the branch, member or employee of the Armed Forces acting in the performance of his duty”, without reference to an existing contract, read plainly, refer to those situations in which an extant contract does not exist.

Likewise, the language of 19 CFR Part 12.99, especially in light of the distinction between subparts 12.99(a)(1) and (a)(2) which specify that the exemption applies to transactions made both “pursuant to a contract” ((a)(1)) with the Armed Forces, and “importation by a branch, member, or employee of the Armed Forces” ((a)(2)) is that the provisions in Part 12.99(a)(2) also contemplate and are intended to include importations made under Armed Forces authority yet not pursuant to a contract. The terms “the branch, member or employee of the Armed Forces acting in the performance of his duty,” without reference to an existing contract, but rather “by or for the account” of the Armed Forces, read plainly, refers to those situations in which an extant contract does not exist. The reference in Part 12.99(b), which describes attachments to the declaration, to “the original or copy of the contract or other documentation which contains the information (emphasis added)” corroborates this interpretation. Although such transactions are not made pursuant to a contract, 19 CFR Parts12.99(c) and 12.99(d) require the detailed contact information, certification and preservation of records (which must be produced on CBP’s demand) that the transactions contemplated in 19 CFR Parts 12.99(a)(1) and (a)(2) are being undertaken for official business of an individual acting under the authority of a branch of the Armed Forces of the United States. Therefore, only in those instances in which a sample is explicitly required in the bidding process can the process above be followed; importation of samples not pursuant to a contract with or in response to a solicitation for bid from the Armed Forces is and will not be permitted.

This interpretation is corroborated by the pertinent provisions of the related United States Postal Service statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1716, which sets forth “Injurious articles as nonmailable”:

(g) All knives having a blade which opens automatically (1) by hand pressure applied to a button or other device in the handle of the knife, or (2) by operation of inertia, gravity, or both, are nonmailable and shall not be deposited in or carried by the mails or delivered by any officer or employee of the Postal Service. Such knives may be conveyed in the mails, under such regulations as the Postal Service shall prescribe-- (1) to civilian or Armed Forces supply or procurement officers and employees of the Federal Government ordering, procuring, or purchasing such knives in connection with the activities of the Federal Government;

(2) to supply or procurement officers of the National Guard, the Air National Guard, or militia of a State ordering, procuring, or purchasing such knives in connection with the activities of such organizations;

(3) to supply or procurement officers or employees of any State, or any political subdivision of a State or Territory, ordering, procuring, or purchasing such knives in connection with the activities of such government; and

(4) to manufacturers of such knives or bona fide dealers therein in connection with any shipment made pursuant to an order from any person designated in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3). The Postal Service may require, as a condition of conveying any such knife in the mails, that any person proposing to mail such knife explain in writing to the satisfaction of the Postal Service that the mailing of such knife will not be in violation of this section. 18 U.S.C. § 1716(g). That 18 U.S.C. § 1716 so closely mirrors the Switchblade Knife Act is intentional: it was amended in 1958 (see Pub. L. 85-623 which inserted the paragraph prohibiting mailing of switchblade knives except in connection with Armed Forces or other Government orders) contemporaneously with the enactment of the Switchblade Knife Act. Although Switchblade Knife Act does not expressly name “procurement officers” as being among those exempted from the general prohibition of importations of switchblades, the references in 19 CFR Part 12.99(a)(2) can reasonably be construed to include such parties because such parties must import switchblades as an employee for, and in furtherance of the interests of, the Armed Forces. Therefore, we conclude that importations of switchblade samples, only when specifically required by an active solicitation for bid (not in anticipation thereof) by the Armed Forces of the United States, may be imported pursuant to the solicitation, as long as the importer complies with requirements of 19 CFR Parts 12.98 and 12.99.

We make the same conclusion regarding the importation of parts and components of switchblade knives imported by the Armed Forces. Given that the prohibition of importation of switchblade parts and components is set forth at 19 CFR Parts 12.95(a) and (a)(3), the exemption set forth at 19 CFR Part 12.97 also applies to those subparts. That is, we conclude that the exemption for switchblade knives imported for sale to the Armed Forces of the United States extends to the importation of the parts and components thereof, if and only if there is compliance with the criteria and certification procedures enumerated in 19 CFR Parts 12.98 and 12.99, respectively.

We note, without comment, that importations of such goods and materials from foreign sources may implicate the Buy American Act (BAA - 41 U.S.C. § 10a–10d), which “restricts the purchase of supplies, that are not domestic end products, for use within the United States.” 48 CFR Part 25.001.

Finally, we turn to your contention that exportation of switchblade knives to countries where the Switchblade Knife Act has no effect is permissible. In support of this contention, you rely upon 19 CFR Part 12.100, which provides in relevant part that “[c]ustoms officers may authorize detained inadmissible knives to be exported otherwise than in the mails” upon a claim that “the importer acted in good faith and without knowledge of the applicable laws and regulations.” Reliance is also made upon Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) 731086, dated March 9, 1988, which determined that keychains with attached balisong knives were permitted to be exported because the “balisong knives [were] not subject to seizure and forfeiture.” We note that the ruling letter predates both the decision in Taylor v. McManus, supra, and Customs Service Decision (C.S.D.) 89-25 (23 Cust. B. & Dec. 568; 1988 CUSBUL LEXIS 202), dated October 31, 1988, in which Customs determined that importation of balisong knives is prohibited by the Switchblade Knife Act.

The relevant CBP regulations were promulgated and are enforced by CBP against importations of switchblade knives. While CBP is empowered to prevent importations of switchblade knives, unassembled kits from which switchblade knives can be assembled as well as switchblade parts and components, the pertinent regulations do not expressly address the manufacture within the United States of switchblade knives for exportation. As you acknowledge in you ruling request, the exportation of merchandise from the United States is regulated and administered by several agencies other than CBP. Therefore, we conclude that the issue does not warrant the issuance of a ruling by this agency.

HOLDINGS:

Therefore, in response to Issue 1 above, switchblade knives can be imported into the United States for sale to lawful markets in the United States, i.e., to the Armed Forces, when the conditions and procedures set forth at 15 U.S.C. § 1544 and 19 CFR Parts 12.98 and 12.99 are followed.

In response to Issue 1a above, a party preparing to bid on an Armed Forces contract for the procurement of switchblade knives can import knives for use as samples to be submitted in response to a solicitation for bid/procurement only when the solicitation for bid explicitly requires such sample and when the requirements and procedures set forth at 15 U.S.C. § 1544 and 19 CFR Parts 12.98 and 12.99 are met and followed. Based on the analysis above, the importer can reference the solicitation from the Armed Forces for purposes of preparing the declaration required under 19 CFR Part 12.99(a)(2).

Similarly, with regard to Issue 2, switchblade knife parts and components can be imported into the United States for purposes of producing switchblade knives for sale to lawful markets, i.e., to the Armed Forces of the United States, when the procedures set forth at 15 U.S.C. § 1544 and 19 CFR Parts 12.98 and 12.99 are met and followed.

Finally, given that exportations from the United States are regulated by other U.S. agencies, we make no conclusions regarding the legality of exportation of switchblade knives manufactured in the United States to foreign countries.

Sincerely,

George Frederick McCray, Chief
Intellectual Property Rights Branch