Addendum to Headquarters Ruling Letter 112208

HQ 112385 July 22, 1992 VES-3-02 CO:R:IT:C 112385 GFM CATEGORY: Carriers R. Taylor Operations Department Rice, Unruh, Reynolds Co. 115 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 RE: Addendum to Headquarters Ruling Letter 112208 Dear Mr. Taylor: This is in reference to your letter dated July 14, 1992, requesting comment on an issue pursuant to the above referenced ruling. In your letter, you inquire as to whether the carriage of several dozen non-fare paying travel agents and reviewers from New York to either Baltimore, Charleston, or Miami aboard the non-coastwise-qualified vessel under consideration would constitute a violation of the coastwise laws. The passenger coastwise law, 46 U.S.C. App. 289, provides that: No foreign vessel shall transport passengers between ports or places in the United States, either directly or by way of a foreign port, under a penalty of $200 for each passenger so transported and landed. The Customs Service has consistently interpreted this proscription to apply to any vessel except a United States-built, owned, and properly documented vessel (see 46 U.S.C. 12106 and 12110, 46 U.S.C. App. 883, and 19 CFR 4.80(a)). Pursuant to section 4.50(b) of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 4.50(b)), the word "passenger," for purposes of this provision, is defined as "...any person carried on a vessel who is not connected with the operation of such vessel, her navigation, ownership, or business." The connection must be direct and immediate, not a remote or hypothetical connection or a connection related only to future voyages. The Customs Service has long-held that while travel agents may be tangentially connected with the business of a vessel in that they may better sell and promote future travel on that vessel, they are not directly enough connected with the business of the vessel to be classified as other than passengers as defined in 19 CFR 4.50(b), whether or not they are charged a fare (ruling letters dated April 3, 1958 [MA 216.131] and August 29, 1960 [MA 217.1]). The connection of such persons to the vessel is questionably closer than their connection to vessels of other lines which offer cruises to the public. It should be noted, however, that travel agents who are employed by the corporation that owns the vessel and whose duties require an on- board presence (e.g., to assist a specific group of passengers) would possess a sufficiently direct and immediate nexus to the vessel's business so as not to be considered passengers for purposes of section 289. Consequently, the proposed carriage of travel agents and reviewers aboard the non-coastwise-qualified vessel described in your proposal would constitute a violation of section 289. Sincerely, B. James Fritz Chief Carrier Rulings Branch