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 > 1999 HQ Rulings > HQ 084703 - HQ 114238 > HQ 114078

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 114078





November 4, 1997

VES-3-02 RR:IT:EC 114078 GG

CATEGORY: VESSELS

Frank Abreu, Jr.
President
Norton Lilly Hawaii Inc./Kerr Norton Marine 680 Iwilei Road
Suite 670
Honolulu, Hawaii 96817

RE: Coastwise laws; 46 U.S.C. App. 289; passengers; M/V CRYSTAL HARMONY

Dear Mr. Abreu:

This is in response to your letter, dated October 22, 1997, in which you ask for an interpretation of the coastwise laws with particular reference to an upcoming voyage of Crystal Cruise Line's M/V CRYSTAL HARMONY. Your company is an agent for Crystal Cruise Lines.

FACTS:

The itinerary calls for the M/V CRYSTAL HARMONY, a Bahamian flag vessel, to arrive in Los Angeles from Ensenada, Mexico, on December 21, 1997. Passengers will embark in Los Angeles. The vessel will then proceed to Hawaii, where the passengers will make shore excursions at various Hawaiian ports. The vessel will return to Los Angeles, via Ensenada, on January 6, 1998, for passenger disembarkation. You ask whether the port call in Ensenada may be eliminated if the passengers embark in Los Angeles on December 21 and disembark there on January 6. You have been advised by U.S. Customs in Los Angeles and Hawaii that the proposed movement would violate the coastwise laws.

ISSUE:

Whether a foreign flag vessel may embark passengers at one U.S. port, sail to another U.S. port for passenger excursions ashore, and return to the original U.S. port, disembarking those same passengers, and be in compliance with the U.S. coastwise laws?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Title 46, United States Code Appendix, Section 289 ( 46 U.S.C. App. 289, the passenger coastwise law), prohibits the transportation of passengers between points embraced within the coastwise laws of the United States, either directly or by way of a foreign port, in any vessel other 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. For purposes of Section 289, "passenger" is defined as "... any person carried on a vessel who is not connected with the operation of such vessel, her navigation, ownership, or business." (19 CFR ?4.50(b).)

The coastwise laws generally apply to points in the territorial sea, defined as the belt, three nautical miles wide, seaward of the territorial sea baseline, and to points located in internal waters, landward of the territorial sea baseline, in cases where the baseline and the coastline differ.

The proposed transaction, whereby passengers would board the vessel in Los Angeles and proceed to various ports in Hawaii before returning directly to Los Angeles, is precluded by Section 4.80a(b)((1) of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR ?4.80a(b)(1)). This regulation provides that there is a violation of the coastwise laws if passengers embark at one coastwise port on a voyage solely to one or more coastwise ports, and then disembark or go ashore temporarily at a coastwise port. "Coastwise ports" are defined in 19 CFR ?4.80a(a)(1) as ports in the U.S., its territories, or possessions embraced within the coastwise laws. It would be a clear violation for passengers to embark at Los Angeles, make temporary shore visits in Hawaii, and then return directly to Los Angeles for disembarkation.

The itinerary as currently scheduled, which has the M/V CRYSTAL HARMONY calling at Ensenada, Mexico, before returning to Los Angeles, would make this voyage acceptable in terms of compliance with the coastwise laws. This is because a planned visit to a nearby foreign port in the course of the journey would render the voyage one that was not solely to one or more coastwise ports.

HOLDING:

The transportation of passengers aboard a non-coastwise-qualified vessel solely between one or more coastwise ports, with shore excursions and no intervening foreign port of call, constitutes a violation of 46 U.S.C. App. 289.

Sincerely,

Jerry Laderberg
Chief

Previous Ruling Next Ruling