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 > 2007 HQ Rulings > HQ H002853 - HQ H004642 > HQ H004489

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ H004489

---

December 15, 2006

VES-3-02-RR:BSTC:CCI H004489 rb

CATEGORY: CARRIER

Jorge L. Vitieri
District Manager, California
Quay Cruise Agencies, U.S.A.
1000 E. Del Amo Boulevard
Carson, CA 90746-3520

RE: Coastwise transportation; Technical operations director; 46 U.S.C. 55103 (formerly 46 U.S.C. App. 289)

Dear Mr. Vitieri:

In your letter of December 13, 2006, transmitted by facsimile, you requested, as agents for V. Ships Leisure and Regent Seven Seas Cruises, that a technical operations director of Celtic Pacific UK LTD, as the owners/ship management representative, be allowed to travel aboard the vessel, M/V SEVEN SEAS MARINER, from Los Angeles to San Diego, CA, from December 18-19, 2006. Our ruling on your request follows.

FACTS:

A technical operations director of a company contracted by a vessel cruise line is to be transported aboard the cruise line’s foreign vessel from Los Angeles to San Diego, CA, embarking on December 18, 2006, and disembarking on December 19, 2006, respectively. The technical operations director will be traveling aboard the vessel to attend to company (the cruise line’s) business, as the owners/ship management representative. In addition, as the owners/ship management representative, the director will also be conducting an onboard operations audit and will be meeting with senior vessel management to review plans concerning a revamping project to be undertaken with respect to the vessel during upcoming dry-dock work.

ISSUE:

Whether the technical operations director would be a passenger under the coastwise passenger statute, 46 U.S.C. 55103 (formerly 46 U.S.C. App. 289).

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

The coastwise passenger statute, 46 U.S.C. 55103 (recodified from former 46 U.S.C. App. 289; Pub. L. 109-304, October 6, 2006), provides that no foreign vessel may transport passengers between ports or places in the United States either directly or by way of a foreign port, upon a penalty of $300 for every passenger so transported and landed. Under section 55103 (see 19 CFR 4.80(a)(5)), a “passenger” is any person carried aboard a vessel who is not connected with the operation of such vessel, her navigation, ownership, or business (19 CFR 4.50(b)). In this regard, as resolved in a June 5, 2002, Customs Bulletin notice (Vol. 36, No. 23, p.50), persons transported on a vessel would be passengers unless they were “directly and substantially” connected with the operation, navigation, ownership, or business of that vessel itself.

In the current context, Headquarters ruling (HQ) 116752, of November 3, 2006, is instructive in explaining the operative administrative law applicable herein, as follows:

[T]he Customs Service [now Customs and Border Protection (CBP)] has repeatedly ruled that if any persons are transported coastwise who are bona fide agents of the line or officers of companies acting as such agents and if such persons while on the voyage are concerned with observing and appraising the facilities offered, such persons...are not ‘passengers’ under section 289 [55103] and § 4.50(b) (emphasis added) (HQ 103410, of May 5, 1978 (operations manager of freight line transported coastwise aboard freight line’s vessel to observe vessel’s operational pattern thereby deemed connected with operation and business of vessel so as not to be a passenger when being transported for this purpose)).

HQ 116752 (emphasis added). See also, HQ H003146, dated November 15, 2006 (contractor (technical group manager) transported coastwise aboard vessel to check/inspect vessel’s navigation equipment and its engine department while en route thereby necessarily connected with operation and/or business of vessel itself and thus not passenger when so transported aboard vessel for this purpose).

Similarly, in the present case, the technical operations director would not be a passenger provided, of course, that the director, while traveling aboard the vessel, as described, would indeed be engaged in conducting an audit of the vessel’s operations, in addition to meeting with senior vessel management to review plans concerning a revamping project to be undertaken with respect to the vessel during upcoming dry-dock work.

HOLDING:

In the case at hand, the technical operations director would not be a passenger provided that the director, while traveling aboard the vessel, would indeed be engaged in conducting an audit of the vessel’s operations, as well as meeting while in transit with senior vessel management to review plans concerning a revamping project to be undertaken with respect to the vessel during upcoming dry-dock work.

Sincerely,

/S/ Glen E. Vereb

Glen E. Vereb

Previous Ruling Next Ruling