permission to relabel may be given. A similar permission will be extended to all food products already afloat at the time of receiving the first notice, or which are so advanced in shipment that they can not be countermanded by cable or otherwise. Other miscellaneous requests for permission to relabel will be decided upon the merits of the case presented, and permission to relabel be granted when it is evident that neither negligence nor indifference is responsible for the failure to secure a proper branding of the product. A similar permission will also be granted when it is apparent that the purpose of the law may thereby be fully accomplished. This action is not to be taken in case of food products containing added substances injurious to health or forbidden by the laws of the country from which the substance comes.
In this connection it is suggested to importers that all orders for food products in the United States be given subject to the passing of the inspection at the ports of entry. It will not be considered a sufficient excuse for the importation of improperly branded or otherwise objectionable food products to show that they were paid for before the inspection took place. The law has now been in force long enough to acquaint foreign exporters with its existence and domestic importers with its provisions. It is therefore held that paying for food products before inspection is completed will not be deemed a sufficient excuse for asking for the relabeling, remarking, or admission thereof.
There are certain other cases in which relabeling of an importation of food products may be permitted, but in no case will such a courtesy be extended where it is evident that either importer or exporter has had ample opportunity and notice to comply with the provisions of the law. Such cases include those where evidently honest attempts have been made to comply with the conditions of the law and where failure has been due to ignorance of the exact nature of the conditions required, or some unavoidable cause. These amendments are made to prevent unnecessary annoyance and hardships, and will not be construed in any way to excuse a failure to comply with the conditions of the law where it is evident that these conditions have been fully understood and opportunity afforded for their application.
Approved:
James Wilson,
Secretary of Agriculture.
Washington, D. C., January 16, 1906.
(F. I. D. 36.)
SUBSTANCES, ORDINARILY FOOD PRODUCTS, INTENDED FOR TECHNICAL PURPOSES.
The question has been raised on several occasions whether food products which are offered for importation for other purposes than to be used in foods are subject to the inspections of similar products when intended for consumption. It has been held (F. I. D. 32) that it is not the purpose of the law, nor is it possible, to follow the ordinary food product into consumption in order to determine to what use it is finally put. The law levying duty on olive oils specifically provides that when such oil is imported for mechanical purposes it is free from duty as an edible oil, provided it is in a condition of rancidity or other state which renders it unfit for consumption as human food. There is no statute covering a similar condition for other food products. It seems only reasonable, however, to apply this principle of law to other food products when it can be done without complicating the question of the ordinary inspection.
It is therefore held that a substance which ordinarily is considered a food product, when offered for importation for technical purposes may be admitted without inspection on the following conditions:
