The mark was assumed
On this page11
A heavy-duty container was treated as specification packaging
Because it looked industrial and it held the material fine. The mark records that a design type passed a test programme; nothing else does.
Our catalog was read as implying one
Which is the failure this property is written to prevent. We do not record marks, so no page of ours can establish that a container carries one.
The letter was read and the rest was not
An X packaging that is a solids packaging, or one tested to a specific gravity below the material being shipped. Nine elements, and the letter is one.
Liquid went into a solids packaging
Element five is the tell: the letter S is a solids or inner packagings designation and a number is a tested hydrostatic pressure.
Specific gravity was ignored
The designation may be omitted when it does not exceed 1.2, which means its absence carries information. A dense liquid in a packaging tested for a light one is outside the mark.
The closure was substituted
A marked container with a cap from somewhere else is not the tested assembly. This is the commonest way a genuinely compliant container stops being one.
The packing group was never determined
Which is the first step and is the shipper's. Without it the letter on the mark cannot be checked against anything.
An old mark was relied on
Element six is the last two digits of the year of manufacture, and reuse has its own conditions. A mark does not expire from view and the rules around reuse are not addressed here.
Nobody asked for the test report
The mark is a summary of documentation that exists. A supplier of specification packaging can produce it, and one who cannot has answered the question.
The fix is to buy the certification, not the container
From a supplier whose product is the compliance. We sell containers for the unregulated half of the operation and say so.