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

HQ H017884 October 2, 2007 VES-3-02-OT:RR:BSTC:CCI H017884 JLB CATEGORY: Carriers Mr. Jesse W. Chambliss General Steamship Corporation, Ltd. 437 Chestnut Street Mezzanine Level Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-2414 RE: Coastwise Transportation; 46 U.S.C. § 55103 Dear Mr. Chambliss: This letter is in response to your correspondence dated October 1, 2007, in which you request a ruling on whether the coastwise transportation of the individual mentioned therein aboard the M/V ROELOF 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/V ROELOF (“the vessel”). The individual embarked on October 1, 2007 at Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania and will be staying aboard the vessel at several subsequent U.S. ports before disembarking in Qatar. 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, Customs and Border Protection 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 embarked at Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, a U.S. port, and will be disembarking at the port of Qatar, 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