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 > 1994 HQ Rulings > HQ 0112786 - HQ 0112925 > HQ 0112817

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

---

HQ 112817

September 8, 1993

VES-3-02 CO:R:IT:C 112817 GOB

CATEGORY: CARRIER

Charles A. Barrett
Harrington Ship Agencies, Inc.
Operations Division
Parkshore Centre
One Poston Road
Suite 135
Charleston, South Carolina 29407

RE: Coastwise Trade; Passengers; 46 U.S.C. App. 289

Dear Mr. Barrett:

This is in response to your letter dated July 19, 1993, requesting a ruling on the application of the coastwise laws with respect to a certain proposed journey by a foreign-flag passenger vessel.

FACTS:

Your letter presents the situation in which a foreign-flag passenger vessel sails from New York and stops at the following ports: Charleston, the Bahama Islands, Barbados, the Virgin Islands, Charleston (a second time), and New York. Passengers will board the vessel at New York and at the first stop in Charleston. You ask whether the "Jones Act" applies to such a voyage.

ISSUE:

Whether the transportation of passengers on a foreign-flag vessel on the itinerary stated above constitutes a violation of 46 U.S.C. App. 289?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Generally, the coastwise laws prohibit the transportation of merchandise or passengers between points in the United States embraced within the coastwise laws in any vessel other than a vessel built in, documented under the laws of, and owned by citizens of the United States. The coastwise law applicable to the carriage of passengers is found 46 U.S.C. App. 289 and provides that:

No foreign vessel shall transport passengers between ports or places in the United States either directly or by way of a foreign port, under a penalty of $200 for each passenger so transported and landed.

Title 19, Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR"), section 4.80a(b) states that:

The applicability of the coastwise law (46 U.S.C. 289) to a vessel not qualified to engage in the coastwise trade (i.e., either a foreign-flag vessel or a U.S.-flag vessel that is foreign-built or at one time has been under foreign flag) which embarks a passenger at a coastwise port is as follows:

. . .

(2) If the passenger is on a voyage to one or more coastwise ports and a nearby foreign port or ports (but at no other foreign port) and the passenger disembarks at a coastwise port other than the port of embarkation, there is a violation of the coastwise law.

A coastwise port is a "port in the U.S., its territories, or possessions embraced within the coastwise laws." 19 C.F.R. 4.80a(a)(1). A nearby foreign port is defined as "any port in North America, Central America, the Bermuda Islands, or the West Indies (including the Bahama Islands, but not including the Leeward Islands of the Netherlands Antilles, i.e., Aruba, Bonaire, and Curacao." 19 C.F.R. 4.80a(a)(2).

19 CFR 4.80a(a)(4) states that:

Embark means a passenger boarding a vessel for the duration of a specific voyage and disembark means a passenger leaving a vessel at the conclusion of a specific voyage. The terms embark and disembark are not applicable to a passenger going ashore temporarily at a coastwise port who reboards the vessel and departs with it on sailing from the port.

The legality of your proposed itinerary must be analyzed through an application of the preceding rules and definitions. Your letter indicates that passengers will embark the vessel in New York and Charleston. Your letter does not state where the passengers will disembark.

The proposed itinerary will not constitute a violation of 46 U.S.C. App. 289 if all passengers who embark the vessel in New York disembark the vessel in New York and all passengers who embark the vessel in Charleston disembark the vessel in Charleston. Further,
the disembarkation of a passenger at a nearby foreign port will not constitute a violation of 46 U.S.C. App. 289. However, as specified in 19 CFR 4.80a(b)(2), there will be a violation of 46 U.S.C. App. 289 if a passenger disembarks the vessel at a coastwise port other than the port of embarkation, i.e., a passenger disembarks at Charleston after embarking at New York or vice versa.

HOLDING:

The proposed itinerary will not constitute a violation of 46 U.S.C. App. 289 if all passengers disembark the vessel at the same coastwise port at which they embarked. Further, the disembarkation of a passenger at a nearby foreign port will not constitute a violation of 46 U.S.C. App. 289. However, there will be a violation of 46 U.S.C. App. 289 if any passenger disembarks the vessel at a coastwise port other than the port of embarkation.

Sincerely,

Arthur P. Schifflin
Chief

Previous Ruling Next Ruling