Coastwise Transportation; 46 U.S.C. § 55103

HQ H045455 November 26, 2008 VES-3-02-OT:RR:BSTC:CCI H045455 JLB CATEGORY: Carriers Captain Abe Khan Inchcape Shipping Services Pier 15 San Francisco, California 94111 RE: Coastwise Transportation; 46 U.S.C. § 55103 Dear Captain Khan: This letter is in response to your correspondence dated November 25, 2008, in which you request a ruling on whether the coastwise transportation of the individual mentioned therein aboard the M/T GINGA KITE 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 individual aboard the non-coastwise-qualified M/T GINGA KITE (“the vessel”). The individual will embark on November 28, 2008 at San Francisco, California and will be staying aboard the vessel at several subsequent U.S. ports before disembarking in Vancouver, British Columbia. ISSUE Whether the use of a non-coastwise-qualified vessel in the voyage described above constitutes an engagement in the coastwise trade in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 55103? 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. In the present case, the coastwise passenger statute is inapplicable to the subject individual’s voyage. In Headquarters Decision H016892, dated September 12, 2007, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) held that individuals embarking at a U.S. port and disembarking at a foreign port were not in violation of the coastwise laws since their transportation does not involve disembarkation at a coastwise port. Based on the facts presented, the subject individual will embark at San Francisco, California, a U.S. port, and will be disembarking at the port of Vancouver, British Columbia, a foreign port. Consequently, the individual will not be in violation of the coastwise statutes insofar as his transportation does not involve disembarkation at a coastwise port. HOLDING The use of a non-coastwise-qualified vessel in the voyage described above does not constitute an engagement in the coastwise trade in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 55103. Sincerely, Glen E. Vereb, Chief Cargo Security, Carriers and Immigration Branch