MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff challenges the exclusion of sweaters imported from the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and seeks a declaratory judgment *43that a regulation, 19 C.F.R. § 12.130(b) (1985),1 defining textile products of insular possessions of the United States for purposes of quota restraints, is ultra vires and void.
Plaintiffs merchandise was denied entry on the grounds it was not accompanied by export visas from the Republic of Korea (Korea), which the United States Customs Service (Customs) maintained was the country of origin of the merchandise, pursuant to 19 .C.F.R. § 12.130(b). Plaintiff says its merchandise is a product of the CNMI for all purposes, pursuant to General Headnote 3(a) of the Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS), and cannot be excluded from entry as a product of Korea by virtue of 19 C.F.R. § 12.130(b). Plaintiff also argues that regulation is ultra vires as applied to the CNMI.
Plaintiff alleges jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1581(a)2 and 1581(i)(3) (1982),- and seeks a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (1982)'and Rule 57 of the Rules of this Court.
The American Fiber/Textile/Apparel Coalition, a coalition of twenty-one American trade associations and unions whose members are involved in production of textiles and textile products, was granted leave to intervene as a party defendant in that part of this action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i).3 The CNMI, through its Resident Representative to the United States, was granted leave to appear as amicus curiae.
Plaintiff moves, and defendant cross-moves, for summary judgment. The parties agree that no issues of material fact are disputed.
The Court holds that 19 C.F.R. § 12.-130(b) does not conflict with General Headnote 3(a).
I. The Exclusion of Plaintiffs Merchandise
In November, 1984 plaintiff attempted to enter a shipment of sweaters processed in the CNMI from components made in Korea. The merchandise was accompanied by a completed Customs Form 3229, certifying that more than fifty percent of the total value of the merchandise was added by materials made and labor performed in the CNMI. Applying 19 C.F.R. § 12.130, Customs determined that the country of origin of the sweaters was Korea.4 Since the *44merchandise was not accompanied by export visas from Korea, the merchandise was refused entry.
Plaintiff contends that General Headnote 3(a), TSUS, precludes application of 19 C.F.R. § 12.130 to its merchandise. Plaintiff says that its merchandise is a “product or manufacture” of the CNMI under General Headnote 3(a) for all purposes, and may not have another country as its country of origin for textile restraint purposes unless so provided for by act of Congress. The Court disagrees.
A. General Headnote 3(a)
By its terms, General Headnote 3(a)5 regulates only the duty paid on imports from insular possessions, such as the CNMI. The headnote is captioned “Rates of Duty” and it expressly speaks only to the “rates of duty” for articles imported into the customs territory of the United States.
The Court agrees with the recent holding of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that nothing in the headnote addresses quota or other restrictions:
Headnote 3(a) applies solely to tariffs and duties---- [A]fter examining the common meanings of the words “duty” and “quota,” we conclude that “duty” cannot be read to encompass “quota” ---- Consequently we hold that that Headnote 3(a) does not apply to quotas, and therefore, that it did not preempt the quota restrictions imposed [on the imported merchandise].
United States v. Patel, 762 F.2d 784, 790-91 (9th Cir.1985). Plaintiff says that Patel, in which fraudulent violation of import laws was alleged, turned on very different facts than this case, and that the Ninth Circuit apparently overlooked headnote 6 of schedule 7, part 2, subpart E (setting a quota on timepieces imported from insular possessions), when the Court said that it “can find absolutely no reference to quotas in any part” of the TSUS. 762 F.2d at 791. But neither of these observations provide a reason why the Patel Court’s interpretation of General Headnote 3(a) should not be followed.
The Court also disagrees with plaintiff’s argument that the legislative history of General Headnote 3(a) indicates that Congress intended that provision to define the country of origin of merchandise imported from insular possessions for all purposes.
A tariff preference for goods from all insular possessions of the United States was first enacted as part of the Customs Simplification Act of 1954, Pub.L. 768, 68 Stat. 1136, 1139, § 401 (enacted as section 301 of the Tariff Act of 1930), which stated in pertinent part:
*45There shall be levied, collected, and paid upon all articles coming into the United States from any of its insular possessions ... the rates of duty which are required to be levied, collected, apd paid upon like articles imported from foreign countries; except that all articles the growth or product of any such possession, or manufactured or produced in any such possession from materials the growth, product, or manufacture of any such possession or of the United States, or of both, which do not contain foreign materials to the value of more than 50 per centum of their total value ... shall be admitted free of duty upon compliance with such regulations as to proof of origin as many be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury [emphasis added].
According to its legislative history, this provision was intended to .
provide for the duty status of importations from the insular possessions of the United States. The new section would provide that all articles imported from an insular possession of the United States ... shall be dutiable at the same rates as are importations from foreign countries, except those which (1) are entirely of native origin or (2) are manufactured in such possession and do not contain over 50 percent of foreign materials
5. Rep. No. 2326, 83rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1954) reprinted in, 1954 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad. News 3, 3900, 3905 (emphasis added). '
General Headnote 3(a) was enacted as part of the Tariff Schedules of the United States in 1962, by the Tariff Classification Act of 1962, Public Law 87-456, 76 Stat. 72. The Tariff Classification Study published by the Tariff Commission stated that:
General headnotes 3 and 4 prescribe the conditions obtaining with respect to the “Rates of duty” columns numbered 1 and 2 in the proposed revised schedules. In doing so, general headnote 3 covers the substance of the special treatment presently accorded to products of insular possession (under par. 301 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended)____
Submitting Report, Vol. 1, p. 17 (emphasis added).6
In 1966, Congress considered the tariff status of products of insular possessions in enacting headnotes to Schedule 7 of the TSUS to establish quotas on importation of timepieces and a special country of origin rule for buttons from insular possessions. The legislative history of Pub.L. 89-805, providing for the timepiece quota, states, in part:
Under paragraph (a) of general headnote 3 of the TSUS articles, the growth-or product of a U.S. insular possession outside the customs territory of the United States, are free of duty when imported into the U.S. customs territory if they do not contain foreign materials to the value of more than 50 percent of their total value.
S.Rep. 1679, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966), reprinted in, 1966 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad. News 4389, 4390 (emphasis added). The legislative history of Pub.L. 89-806, providing for the country of origin rule for buttons, describes General Headnote 3(a) as providing an “advantage” for goods from insular possessions. *46S.Rep. 1600, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966), reprinted in 1966 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad. News 4398, 4401 (emphasis added).7
*45This advantage consists of duty-free treatment for articles coming from, the insular possessions if they meet two simple tests. First, the article arriving from the possession must have a value at least double the value of the foreign materials contained in it. Second, it must have been subjected to some manufacturing or processing operation in the possession.
*46From the legislative history of General Headnote 3(a), the Court draws two conclusions. First, nothing in the legislative history of General Headnote 3(a) known to the Court indicates that the headnote was intended to regulate anything other than rate of duty. See Patel, supra. Second, the legislative history indicates that Congress intended that General Headnote 3(a) grant duty-free treatment to merchandise which (1) is a growth, product or manufacture of an insular possession and (2) satisfies a specified percentage of its value derived from the insular possession. Congress has never specified how merchandise is to be defined as a growth, product or manufacture of an insular possession.8 Congress presumably left definition of these terms to the Executive branch.
Plaintiff points to the quotas Congress enacted on timepieces imported from insular possessions, apparently to argue that Congress has reserved for itself authority to enact quotas on merchandise which met the rule of origin stated in General Headnote 3(a). But the fact that Congress has enacted quotas with respect to one kind of merchandise hardly argues that it has not delegated to executive branch authority to adopt other country of origin rules for non duty purposes.
B. 19 C.F.R. § 12.130 and the CNMI
Plaintiff and amicus curiae argue at length that Customs had no authority to exclude products imported from the CNMI under 19 C.F.R. § 12.130 since (1) the source of executive power to regulate textile imports is section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended, 7 U.S.C. § 1854 (1982),9 (2) that statute grants the President authority to issue regulations governing importation of products of *47“countries”, and (3) the CNMI is not a country, but an insular possession in commonwealth status with the United States.10
But, plaintiffs merchandise was excluded because it was determined to be a product of Korea, not the CNMI. The President has been delegated broad authority under section 204 to. negotiate textile restraint agreements with other nations, and to order the promulgation of regulations to carry out such agreements. See American Association of Exporters and Importers—Textile and Apparel Group v. United States, 751 F.2d 1239 (Fed.Cir.1985). Pursuant to this authority, the United States entered into an agreement with Korea limiting imports of textile products from that country into the United States, and the President ordered 19 C.F.R. § 12.130 promulgated to prevent the circumvention and frustration of such agreements. See Exec. Order No. 12475, 49 Fed.Reg. 19955 (May 11, 1984). Plaintiff does not question the President’s authority to negotiate such an agreement with Korea, or to order the promulgation of section 12.130 to carry out such agreements. See Mast Industries, Inc. v. Regan, 8 CIT —, 596 F.Supp. 1567 (1984); American Association of Exporters and Importers—Textile and Apparel Group v. United States, 751 F.2d 1239 (Fed.Cir.1985).
Plaintiff contends that Congress has limited its delegation of authority to the President under section 204 to define products of “countries” for textile restraint purposes to excluding from such restraints products subject to duty-free treatment under General Headnote 3(a). But the Court finds nothing in the legislative history of General Headnote 3(a) or section 204 which requires such an interpretation of these statutes. General Headnote 3(a) provides only for duty-free treatment for products of insular possessions. It is not impermissible for section 12.130(b), defining products for purposes of quantitative restraints on textiles, to affect products imported from insular possessions.
In effect, the country of origin of the merchandise was Korea for textile restraint purposes, and may have been the CNMI for duty and marking purposes.11 This situation may be awkward, but there is no violation of General Headnote 3(a).
II. The Declaratory Judgment
Plaintiff asks for a declaratory judgment in several paragraphs in its complaint.12 *48Plaintiff seems to request that the Court declare ultra vires and void (1) section 12.130(b) on its face and as applied (a) to plaintiff’s merchandise; (b) to future shipments of plaintiff’s merchandise; and (c) to “textile articles from” the CNMI; and (2) the notice of the Chairman of the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, limiting to 70,000 dozen the number of sweaters that may be imported from the CNMI without application of section 12.130 during the period November 1, 1984 to October 31, 1985.
Plaintiff seeks relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (1982).13 The Customs Court Act of 1980, § 301, 28 U.S.C. § 2643(c)(1) (1982), creating the Court of International Trade, specifically granted the Court authority to “order any ... form of relief that is appropriate in a civil action, including ... declaratory judgments.” 14 Although the Court has considered its jurisdiction to issue declaratory judgments under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(h) (1982),15 see 718 Fifth Avenue Corp. v. United States, 7 CIT - (Slip Op. 84-39), apparently there has been no judicial opinion discussing the Court’s authority to issue declaratory judgments under 28 U.S.C. § 2643(c)(1) or 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
Analyzing the Declaratory Judgment Act, the Supreme Court has been clear that “[t]he requirements for a justiciable ease or controversy are no less strict in a declaratory judgment proceeding than in any other type of suit____ This court is without power to give advisory opinions____ It has long been its considered practice not to decide abstract, hypothetical or contingent questions.” Alabama Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 325 U.S. 450, 461, 65 S.Ct. 1384, 1389, 89 L.Ed. 1725 (1945). The *49Court therefore will examine each .issue with respect to which plaintiff requests declaratory judgment to determine whether it presents “a real, substantial controversy between parties having adverse legal interests, [and is] a dispute definite and concrete, not hypothetical or abstract.” Babbit v. United Farm Workers National Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298, 99 S.Ct. 2301, 2308, 60 L.Ed.2d 895 (1979).
Plaintiff concedes that section 12.130(b) validly regulates products of “countries”. The Court has decided that plaintiff’s merchandise was lawfully excluded pursuant to section 12.130(b) as a product of Korea. See pages 4-15, supra. Thus the Court has already held section 12.130(b) valid as applied to plaintiff’s merchandise, and, by extension, future shipments of similar merchandise.
Plaintiff also challenges reference in section 12.130(b) to “products ... of insular possessions” and application of the regulation to “products” of the CNMI.
An action under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) may be brought “by any person adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of section 702 of title 5.” 28 U.S.C. § 2681® (1982). But plaintiff has not alleged that it is adversely affected or aggrieved by the regulation of products of insular possessions, since plaintiff’s merchandise is a product of Korea and not the product of an insular possession. The Court may not issue a declaratory judgment “advising what the law would be on a hypothetical state of facts.” Aetna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 241, 57 S.Ct. 461, 464, 81 L.Ed. 617 (1937).
Plaintiff also lacks standing, on the present record, to challenge the directive of the Chairman of the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA) to Customs, which permits 70,000 dozen sweaters to be imported from the CNMI without application of section 12.130 during the period November 1, 1984 to October 31, 1985.16 Nothing in plaintiff’s complaint, or in its briefs on the pending motions, alleged any facts to indicate that plaintiff was or would be adversely affected or aggrieved by the CITA directive.17
The Court holds that section 12.130(b) is valid as applied to plaintiff’s merchandise, and that plaintiff lacks standing to claim that the regulation is invalid as applied to products of the CNMI or to challenge the CITA directive excepting 70,000 dozen sweaters imported from the CNMI.
III. Conclusion
The. Court holds that General Headnote 3(a) of the TSUS regulates only duty paid on imports from insular possessions and does not define the country of origin of merchandise imported from insular possessions for all purposes; that plaintiff’s merchandise was lawfully excluded pursuant to section 12.130(b) as a product of Korea; and that plaintiff lacks standing to challenge (1) section 12.130 as applied to products of insular possessions and (2) the CITA directive.
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. So ordered.