HQ 0224057 - Extent of coverage of an international customs carrier bond; 19 U.S.C. 1623; 19 CFR 113.64; 8 U.S.C. 1103. - 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 > 1993 HQ Rulings > HQ 0224025 - HQ 0450288 > HQ 0224057

HQ 224057

December 18, 1992

BON-3-02 CO:R:C:E 224057 TLS

CATEGORY: ENTRY

Mr. Robert J. Williams
General Steamship Corporation
One California Street Suite 2000
San Francisco, California 94111-5421

RE: Extent of coverage of an international customs carrier bond; 19 U.S.C. 1623; 19 CFR 113.64; 8 U.S.C. 1103.

Dear Mr. Williams:

We have received your request for information concerning the above-mentioned issue. After considering the points raised in your letter dated July 6, 1992, we have reached the following conclusions.

You correctly note that 19 U.S.C. 1623 does not specifically authorize Customs to charge Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) penalties against the international carrier bond. Nevertheless, we point your attention to subsection (d) of the same section. Under 19 U.S.C. 1623(d), the following is provided for:

No condition in any bond taken to assure compliance with any law, regulation, or instruction which the Secretary of the Treasury or the Customs Service is authorized to enforce shall be held invalid on the ground that such condition is not specified in the law, regulation, or instruction authorizing or requiring the taking of such bond. (Emphasis added.)

The language is clear. Where Customs is authorized to enforce a law, regulation, or instruction, it may utilize a bond established under its authority to do so. Furthermore, 19 CFR 113.64(a) states that a penalty, duty, tax, or other charge provided by law or regulation that is incurred under international carrier bond shall be paid by the master, owner, or person in charge of the vessel. It does not specify that only Customs laws are to be enforced under such bond.

The issue at this point is whether the Government, specifically the Customs Service, is limited to exclusive reliance on either the International Carrier Bond or the bond taken on Form I-310. While the latter bond is expressly taken to insure that the Government does not suffer the repatriation costs, both paragraph (a) and paragraph (e) of the International Carrier Bond (19 CFR 113.64(a) and (e)) provide coverage broad enough to cover the situation posed in your letter.

We disagree that the language "If any vessel..., or any master, owner or person in charge of a vessel,... incurs... a charge provided by law or regulation..." is limited to the Tariff Act of 1930 and the regulations which implement that Act. Furthermore, repatriation costs incurred by the Government fall within "any expense arising out entry or clearance of the carrier."

Under 8 U.S.C. 1103, the powers and duties of the Attorney General and Commissioner of INS are delineated. Among the many powers outlined, the Attorney General is charged with the administration and enforcement of all laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens. To that end, the Attorney General "is authorized to confer or impose upon any employee of the United States, with the consent of the head of the Department [of State] or other independent establishment under whose jurisdiction the employee is serving, any of the powers, privileges, or duties conferred or imposed by [INS laws] or regulations issued thereunder upon officers or employees of the Service. (Emphasis added.)

The foregoing would suggest that Customs officials can be authorized, or even required, to enforce the INS laws and regulations. The consent of the Department of State or alternatively in this case, the Customs Service would be needed.

As for the status of the Customs bond in light of non- compliance with the INS fine in this case, 19 CFR 113.52 provides guidance on this issue. Under 19 CFR 113.52, the following is provided for:

If any Customs bond, except one given only for the production of free-entry or reduced-duty documents, is unsatisfied upon the expiration of 90 days after liability has accrued under the bond, the matter shall be reported to the Department of Justice for prosecution unless measures have been taken to file an application for relief or protest in accordance with the provisions of this chapter or to satisfactorily settle the matter. See also 19 CFR 113.51.

Thus, the bond in question could be subject to cancellation and further penalties and fines could accrue. Part 113 of the Customs Regulations provides more detailed information on the cancellation of bonds; Part 174 provides information on what
should be done to formally protest a Customs decision. For more information, you might wish to contact INS concerning its delegation of authority procedures.

Sincerely,

William G. Rosoff, Chief

Previous Ruling Next Ruling