HQ 0221471 - Reimportation of Stolen Vehicles - United States International Trade Commision Rulings

United States International Trade Commision Rulings And Harmonized Tariff Schedule

faqs.org Rulings By Number Rulings By Category Tariff Numbers

faqs.org > Rulings and Tariffs Home > Rulings By Number > 1990 HQ Rulings > HQ 0220042 - HQ 0544048 > HQ 0221471

HQ 221471

June 12, 1989

ENT-1-03-CO:R:C:E 221471 TG

CATEGORY: OTHER

District Director of Customs
4430 E. Adamo Dr., Suite 301
Tampa, Florida 33605

RE: Reimportation of Stolen Vehicles

Dear Ms. Zwicker:

The following is in response to your letter requesting a ruling on whether an importer must pay duty a second time, if the units involved were criminally exported with apparently false documentation.

FACTS: The facts involve a situation where five automobiles were stolen in the United States and exported into Bremerhaven, West Germany. All five automobiles were owned by Alamo Rent-A-Car Company. The units were shipped from Newark, New Jersey to West Germany and were seized by the West German police in Bremerhaven. The automobiles included four Volvos and one Chevrolet Corsica. Duty has been paid on the four Volvos.

ISSUE: Whether the importer must pay duty on reimportation, if the vehicles were criminally exported with apparently false documentation.

LAW AND ANALYSIS: Under 19 C.F.R. 123.72, the District Director can admit without entry and payment of duty allegedly stolen or embezzled vehicles, trailers, airplanes, or component parts of any of them, under the provisions of the The Convention between the United States of America and the United Mexican States for the Recovery and Return of Stolen or Embezzled Vehicles and Aircraft of June 28, 1983.

The regulations are silent as to the extension of this provision to other nations. However, the facts in this case were exactly what 19 C.F.R. 123.72 contemplated. Moreover, the case law also supports use of an analogous procedure to the extent possible.

In C.M.Snow v. United States, T.D. 46772 (1933), the Court found that "inasmuch as possession of the automobile in question was obtained in an illegal, fraudulent, and felonious manner and it, by reason and by perpetration thereof, was taken outside the confines of the United States without the consent on the part of the owner thereof, the same was never legally exported from the

United States and imported into Canada, and therefore the repossession and return of said automobile was not an importation of merchandise exported to this country."

In Eastman Kodak Co.v. U.S., T.D. 40309- GA. 8831(1924), the Court stated that the authorities seem to be clear that there can be no importation without an intent to import. "In other words, if goods arrive in the country through inadvertance or mistake it is not held to be an importation which subjects them to the payment of duty...Conversely, we are of the opinion that no exportation could be made without an intent on the part of the person authorized to export."

In the present case, there was no exportation because there was no intent on the part of the persons authorized to export and since there was no exportation, there can be no importation.

There are a line of cases which appear to the contrary but which may be distinguished from the facts in this case. For example, in William Alberts Motor Co. v. U.S., T.D. 43072(1928), the Court held that an automobile manufactured in the U.S. and taken to a foreign country by the person in rightful possession, contrary to agreement with the legal owner, and by him sold while abroad, is not free of duty as American goods returned, under paragraph 1514, Tariff Act of 1922, when brought back into the U.S. by the legal owner. The law provides that in order to enter returned American products free of duty they must be imported by or for the account of the person who exported them from the U.S.

In another case, the purchaser of the car, who at the time of purchase became the rightful possessor thereof, took the car to British Columbia. He took it there as his property. The Court found that he was the legal exporter. Up to the time that the merchandise was imported into Canada no one had challenged the exporter's legal possession of the automobile. His rightful possession was not questioned until the car was seized. The seller's immediate right of possession unless exercised, does not deprive the buyer of his rightful possession. (Abstract 10677, 1930)

The present case can be distinguished from these cases since four of the five cars here were not American products and they were not in the hands of a rightful possessor. Alamo, as the rightful possessor and legal owner, did not have the intent to export. The automobiles were obtained in an illegal manner and were taken outside of the United States without the consent of the owner. They were never legally exported from the United States and therefore the repossession and return of these automobiles was not an importation of merchandise exported to this country.

HOLDING: Articles sent to a foreign country by a thief are not exported for Customs purposes. The return of those articles to the United States by the rightful owner therefore is not an importation. The District Director may admit without entry and payment of duty stolen or embezzled vehicles that are returned to the United States by the rightful owner using the procedures set forth in 19 C.F.R. 123.72.

Sincerely,

John Durant
Director

Previous Ruling Next Ruling