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 H018478 - HQ H019332 > HQ H018794

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ H018794

---

October 23, 2007

VES-3-02-OT:RR:BSTC:CCI H018794 JLB

CATEGORY: CARRIER

Mr. Chris Kitsos
Vice President
NSA Agencies, Inc.
110 James Drive West
Suite 120
St. Rose, Louisiana 70087

RE: Coastwise Transportation; 46 U.S.C. § 55103; 19 C.F.R. § 4.50(b)

Dear Mr. Kitsos:

This letter is in response to your correspondence dated October 20, 2007, in which you request a ruling on whether the coastwise transportation of the individuals mentioned therein aboard the M/V FENG SHAN HAI constitutes a violation of 46 U.S.C. § 55103. Our ruling on your request follows.

FACTS

The voyage in question involves the transportation of the subject individuals aboard the non-coastwise-qualified M/V FENG SHAN HAI (“the vessel”). The six individuals will embark on October 30, 2007 at Point Comfort, Texas and will disembark at the port of New Orleans, Louisiana on or about November 1, 2007. The individuals will travel aboard the vessel to remove the residue aluminum ore from the cargo holds, bulkheads, side shell plating and tank tops to prepare for the grain that will be loaded at New Orleans, Louisiana.

ISSUE

Whether the individuals described above would be “passengers” within the meaning of 46 U.S.C. § 55103 and 19 C.F.R. § 4.50(b)?

LAW AND ANALYSIS

The coastwise passenger statute, former 46 U.S.C. App. § 289 recodified as 46 U.S.C. § 55103, pursuant to P.L. 109-304 (October 6, 2006), states that no foreign vessel shall transport passengers “between ports or places in the United States to which the coastwise laws apply, either directly or by way of a foreign port,” under a penalty of $300 for each passenger so transported and landed. See also 19 C.F.R. § 4.80(b)(2). The coastwise laws generally apply to points in the territorial sea, which is 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.

Under 46 U.S.C. § 55103, a “passenger” is any person carried aboard a vessel “who is not connected with the operation of the vessel, her navigation, ownership, or business.” See also 19 C.F.R. § 4.50(b). In this regard, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) provides a strict interpretation of “passenger” defining the term as persons transported on a vessel unless they are "directly and substantially" connected with the operation, navigation, ownership or business of that vessel itself. See Customs Bulletin of June 5, 2002, Vol. 36, No. 23, at pp. 50.

Pursuant to Headquarters Decision 101699, dated November 5, 1975, it is well settled that "workmen, technicians, or observers transported by vessel between ports of the United States are not classified as ‘passengers’ within the meaning of section 4.50(b) and section 289 if they are required to be on board to contribute to the accomplishment of the operation or navigation of the vessel during the voyage or are on board because of a necessary vessel ownership or business interest during the voyage." See also Headquarters Decision 116721, dated September 25, 2006. In the present case, the six individuals would be traveling aboard the non-coastwise-qualified vessel to remove the aluminum ore from the vessel’s cargo holds, bulkheads, side shell plating and tank tops. Under the facts presented, the individuals would be “directly and substantially” related to the operation and business of the vessel during the voyage and would not be considered “passengers” under 46 U.S.C. § 55103 and 19 C.F.R. § 4.50(b). Consequently, the coastwise transportation of the subject individuals is not in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 55103.

HOLDING

The subject individuals are not “passengers” within the meaning of 46 U.S.C. § 55103 and 19 C.F.R. § 4.50(b). Therefore, the coastwise transportation of such individuals is not in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 55103.

Sincerely,

Glen E. Vereb, Chief

Previous Ruling Next Ruling