Coastwise trade; Indirect shipment; Shipping to Hawaii; 46 U.S.C. App. 883; Third proviso
Issued July 8, 1994 by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Tariff classification
Product description
It is proposed that steel of United States origin be shipped by either truck or rail to the port of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. The steel would then be placed aboard a foreign-flag vessel together with merchandise originating at that port. The vessel would then proceed to Hawaii where all cargo would be discharged.
CBP rationale
The coastwise law pertaining to the transportation of merchandise, section 27 of the Act of June 5, 1920, as amended (41 Stat. 999; 46 U.S.C. App. 883, often called the Jones Act), provides that: - 2 - 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 trans- portation, 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... Under the plain terms of the statute,the proposed transportation would be a violative indirect transportation via foreign territory. The proposed transportation would not be covered within the terms of the so-called third proviso to section 883. That proviso would permit transportation of the type described if the United States points involved were either in the continental United States or Alaska, but not Hawaii.
Full text
July 8, 1994 HQ 113032 VES-3-CO:R:IT:C 113032 LLB CATEGORY: Carriers Mr. Bill Thayer President and General Manager Waldron Steamship Company, Ltd. Pier One Control Tower Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 RE: Coastwise trade; Indirect shipment; Shipping to Hawaii; 46 U.S.C. App. 883; Third proviso Dear Mr. Thayer: Reference is made to your request for a ruling on the legality of moving cargo from the mainland United States to Hawaii, through a location in Canada. FACTS: It is proposed that steel of United States origin be shipped by either truck or rail to the port of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. The steel would then be placed aboard a foreign-flag vessel together with merchandise originating at that port. The vessel would then proceed to Hawaii where all cargo would be discharged. ISSUE: Whether merchandise transported by either truck or rail from a point in the United States to Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, may then be placed aboard a foreign-flag vessel for transportation to and discharge in Hawaii without violating the provisions of the coastwise merchandise transportation statute. LAW AND ANALYSIS: The coastwise law pertaining to the transportation of merchandise, section 27 of the Act of June 5, 1920, as amended (41 Stat. 999; 46 U.S.C. App. 883, often called the Jones Act), provides that: - 2 - 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 trans- portation, 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... Under the plain terms of the statute,the proposed transportation would be a violative indirect transportation via foreign territory. The proposed transportation would not be covered within the terms of the so-called third proviso to section 883. That proviso would permit transportation of the type described if the United States points involved were either in the continental United States or Alaska, but not Hawaii. HOLDING: Merchandise may not be transported in part by a foreign-flag vessel between a point in the continental United States and Hawaii, via a port of lading in Hawaii. Such a movement would be in violation of 46 U.S.C. App. 883. Sincerely, Arthur P. Schifflin Chief Carrier Rulings Branch
More rulings on the same tariff codes
Country of origin determination for decorative pillow; 19 CFR 102.21(c)(2); tariff shift
Country of Origin; Finished Leather
Country of origin determination for decorative pillows; 19 CFR 102.21(c)(2); tariff shift
Country of origin determination for a faux rabbit fur pillow; 19 CFR 102.21(c)(2); tariff shift
Country of origin determination for a faux rabbit fur throw; 19 CFR 102.21(c)(5); last country where an important assembly or manufacturing process occurred
Country of origin determination for a sheet set and comforter; 19 CFR 102.21(c)(2); tariff shift; 19 CFR 102.21(c)(4); most important assembly or manufacturing process; 19 CFR 102.13; De Minimis
Country of origin determination for duvet covers, pillow shams and quilts; 19 CFR 102.21(c)(2); tariff shift; 19 CFR 102.21(c)(4); most important assembly or manufacturing process
Country of origin determination for a coir mat; 19 CFR 102.21(c)(1); wholly obtained or produced in a single country
Country of origin and marking determination for cotton woven gauze fabric; 19 CFR 102.21(c)(2)
The country of origin of two bandage fabrics; 19 CFR 102.21(c)(2), tariff shift; 19 CFR 102.21(c)(4)
Searching CBP rulings the smart way
TariffLens semantically searches all 200,000+ CBP rulings, surfaces the ones that actually match your product, and builds defensible classifications backed by ruling citations.
Book a demo →