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 > 1995 HQ Rulings > HQ 113298 - HQ 113511 > HQ 113365

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 113365

---

March 10, 1995

VES-3-17-CO:R:IT:C 113365 GEV

CATEGORY: CARRIER

Carl D. Cammarata, Esq.
Law Offices of George R. Tuttle
Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1160
San Francisco, California 94111

RE: Coastwise Trade; Third Proviso to 46 U.S.C. App. ? 883

Dear Mr. Cammarata:

This is in response to your letter dated March 7, 1995 (file reference no. 1861), on behalf of your client, Kennecott Holdings Corporation ("Kennecott") requesting a ruling regarding the applicability of the third proviso to 46 U.S.C. App. ? 883 to a proposed transportation of ore concentrates. The ruling you request is set forth below.

FACTS:

Kennecott proposes to ship ore concentrates on non-coastwise-qualified vessels from Hawke Inlet, Alaska to Vancouver Wharves, British Columbia, Canada where it will be transferred onto rail cars and moved, at least in part, over Canadian rail lines en route to Kennecott's customer's facilities in Montana. The following documentation was submitted in support of Kennecott's ruling request: a copy of an interoffice memorandum dated February 8, 1995, from Burlington Northern Railroad to Kennecott advising that the route and published rates are on file and approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) and that the routing utilizes Canadian rail lines (Exhibit 1); and a copy of a letter dated February 7, 1995, from the Canadian company, CN North America, to Kennecott describing their connection with the Canadian water facilities and routing through Canada on Canadian rail lines to connect with Burlington Northern for delivery in Montana (Exhibit 2).

ISSUE:

Whether the proposed transportation of ore concentrates between coastwise points, accomplished in part by non-coastwise-qualified vessels, is in compliance with the third proviso to 46 U.S.C. App. ? 883.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Title 46, United States Code Appendix, ? 883 (46 U.S.C. App. ? 883, the coastwise merchandise statute, often called the "Jones Act"), provides in pertinent part that:

No merchandise...shall be transported by water, or by land and water, on penalty of forfeiture of the merchandise (or a monetary amount up to the value thereof as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, or the actual cost of the transportation, whichever is greater, to be recovered from any consignor, seller, owner, importer, consignee, agent or other person or persons so transporting or causing said merchandise to be transported), between points in the United States...embraced within the coastwise laws, either directly or via a foreign port, or for any part of the transportation, in any other vessel than a vessel built in and documented under the laws of the United States and owned by persons who are citizens of the United States...

The third proviso to 46 U.S.C. App. ? 883 provides that:

[T]his section shall not apply to merchandise transported between points within the continental United States, including Alaska, over through routes heretofore or hereafter recognized by the Interstate Commerce Commission for which routes rate tariffs have been or shall hereafter be filed with said Commission when such routes are in part over Canadian rail lines and their own or other connecting water facilities.

Simply stated, ? 883 would not prohibit the transportation of merchandise if all of the conditions to the third proviso are met, that is:
a) through routes are utilized which have hereto or are hereafter recognized by the I.C.C.
b) routes rate tariffs have been or shall hereafter be filed with the I.C.C., and have not subsequently been rejected for filing, have become effective according to their terms, and have not been subsequently suspended, or withdrawn by the Commission.
c) the routes utilized are in part over Canadian rail lines and their own or other connecting water facilities.

The Customs Service has held that "over Canadian rail lines" means over rail trackage in Canada, and that "their own or other connecting water facilities" means water facilities covered by a through route regardless of whether those facilities connect directly with the Canadian rail line covered by that through route.

Upon reviewing the documentation submitted it is readily apparent that the proposed service is in accord with the third proviso to 46 U.S.C. App. ? 883. Accordingly, Kennecott's use of non-coastwise-qualified vessels in the transportation of ore concentrates as discussed above will not constitute a violation of the coastwise merchandise law.

HOLDING:

The proposed transportation of ore concentrates, accomplished in part by non-coastwise-qualified vessels, is in compliance with the third proviso to 46 U.S.C. App. ? 883.

Sincerely,

Arthur P. Schifflin

Previous Ruling Next Ruling