Exportation of used self-propelled vehicles; 13 U.S.C. § 303; 19 U.S.C. §§ 66, 1624, 1627a, 1646c; 19 C.F.R. § 192.2

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20229 U.S. Customs and Border Protection HQ H277498 April 12, 2017 VES-3-02-OT:RR:BSTC:CCR HQ H277498 SWM Mr. Solomon S. Abady, Esq. Abady Law Firm, P.C. 244 5th Avenue, Suite 280S New York, New York 10001 CATEGORY: Carriers Re: Exportation of used self-propelled vehicles; 13 U.S.C. § 303; 19 U.S.C. §§ 66, 1624, 1627a, 1646c; 19 C.F.R. § 192.2 Dear Mr. Abady: This letter is in response to your ruling request and emails to this office dated June 8, 2016, August 17, 2016, November 16, 2016, and February 28, 2017, regarding the exportation of an untitled, used self-propelled motor vehicle by Part Time Hobby Sales, L.L.C. (“PTHS”). Our decision follows. FACTS In your submission, you submit the following facts and circumstances. PTHS is scheduled to export an untitled 1972 Honda CB750 (“motorcycle”) with Vehicle Identification Number (“VIN”) CB750-2048297. PTHS purchased the motorcycle for parts by Bill of Sale dated May 2, 2016, in Iowa from a private individual who purchased the motorcycle “as is” without title. The title is presumed lost. PTHS now wants to export the motorcycle to Hakata, Japan for delivery to a buyer to whom it sold the motorcycle pursuant to a Contract of Sale dated May 5, 2016. The date of the scheduled export is June 8, 2017, and the place of export is Tacoma, Washington. Because the motorcycle is untitled, you provided, along with your ruling request, the Bill of Sale between the private individual and PTHS and a letter to PTHS from the Iowa Department of Motor Vehicles (“Iowa DMV”) indicating that it cannot title or otherwise register the motorcycle in Iowa because PTHS is not a citizen of Iowa. The Iowa DMV letter refers PTHS to Washington for any title requirements. ISSUES Whether a vehicle with a title presumed lost qualifies as a “Vehicle[] issued a title or certificate that is not in force or [is] otherwise not registered” for purposes of 19 C.F.R. § 192.2(b)(3)(iv). Whether the Iowa DMV letter to PTHS satisfies the requirement of 19 C.F.R. § 192.2(b)(3)(iv) and proves that the jurisdiction “from where the vehicle comes does not have any ownership documentation requirements for such vehicle[].” Whether the jurisdiction in which the purchase of the motorcycle occurred is the “jurisdiction from where the vehicle comes” for purposes of 19 C.F.R. § 192.2(b)(3)(iv). LAW AND ANALYSIS Treasury Decision 99-34, dated May 6, 1999, amended the Customs regulations to implement title IV of the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992, which controls the exportation of used self-propelled vehicles. The amendments addressed the nature of the documentation that established ownership of a vehicle bound for exportation and the presentation of that documentation to Customs. Promulgated pursuant to 13 U.S.C. § 303 and 19 U.S.C. §§ 66, 1624, 1627a, and 1646c, 19 C.F.R. § 192.2(b)(3)(iv) regulates, among other things, vehicles issued a title or certificate that is not in force or are otherwise not registered, and provides as follows: For used, self-propelled vehicles that were issued, by any jurisdiction of the United States, a title or certificate that is no longer in force, or that are not required to be titled or registered, and for which an MSO was not issued, the owner must establish that the jurisdiction from where the vehicle comes does not have any ownership documentation requirements regarding such vehicles and provide to Customs, at the time and place specified in this section, the original document that shows his basis for ownership or right of possession, such as a bill of sale, and two complete copies of that original document. Further, the owner must certify in writing to Customs that the procurement of the vehicle was a bona fide transaction, and that the vehicle presented for export is not stolen. To determine which documents 19 C.F.R. § 192.2(b)(3)(iv) requires for the subject motorcycle to be exported, we must first determine whether the motorcycle is a vehicle “issued a title or certificate that is not in force” or that is “not required to be titled or registered, and for which an MSO was not issued.” You assert that the title of the motorcycle is presumed lost. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “in force” as, “in effect; operative; binding.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 10th ed. (2014). From the record, we cannot determine whether there is a title in force for the subject motorcycle. While the statement that the title was “presumed lost” indicates that the motorcycle was issued a title at some point, we cannot tell whether the title is still in force, whether the private individual or PTHS was required to obtain a replacement title or otherwise register the motorcycle in Iowa, or whether the private individual could have obtained a replacement title or otherwise register the motorcycle in Iowa. Finally, no documentation has been provided to show that the sale between the private individual and PTHS was a bona fide sale even though no title or scrap/junk certificate was transferred. Relatedly, the letter from the Iowa DMV states that “Iowa cannot issue you a title to the vehicle as you are not a resident of the state” and goes on to advise PTHS to obtain a title to the motorcycle in Washington. The letter does not provide any detail as to Iowa’s ownership documentation requirements regarding untitled used motorcycles. Without this information, we are unable to determine if the subject motorcycle qualifies as a vehicle with no title in force or whether Iowa has ownership documentation requirements for used motorcycles sold for parts. While in some states an untitled 45 year-old motorcycle sold for parts may be legally sold without obtaining a replacement title or scrap/junk certificate, some states may require such ownership documentation. We cannot conclude that the subject motorcycle has no title in force without knowing whether Iowa has ownership documentation requirements and if so, whether they were met such that the sale of the motorcycle by the private individual to PTHS was legally valid and binding. Moreover, even if we concluded that the motorcycle qualified as a vehicle with no title in force, we note that PTHS did not provide a writing certifying that the procurement of the motorcycle was a bona fide transaction, and that it was not stolen as required by 19 C.F.R. § 192.2(b)(3)(iv). This leads us to your final inquiry of whether the “jurisdiction from where the vehicle comes” is the place of purchase. In HQ 115528, we held in part that “any requirements imposed upon … clients to have vehicles re-titled in the State from which [they] are to export the vehicles are at odds with the regulations, and the original intent of the regulations as outlined in T.D. 9934, unless the jurisdictions from which the vehicles originate have such ownership documentation requirements.” Accordingly in this case, PTHS is not required to re-title the motorcycle in Washington simply because that is the place of export, unless Iowa has such ownership documentation requirements. The jurisdiction from which the subject motorcycle originated was Iowa, where the sale from the private individual to PTHS, the would-be exporter of the motorcycle, occurred. HOLDING In accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 192.2(b)(3)(iv), a statement that a title is “presumed lost” is insufficient to conclude that a vehicle was issued a title “that is no longer in force.” A letter from the government-issuing authority of the jurisdiction from which the vehicle originates must specifically state whether or not the state has ownership documentation requirements for vehicles lacking registration/certification to satisfy 19 C.F.R. § 192.2(b)(3)(iv). The “jurisdiction from where the vehicle comes” is the place of purchase, not the place of export. Sincerely, Lisa L. Burley Supervisory Attorney-Advisor/Chief Cargo Security, Carriers and Restricted Merchandise Branch Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings U.S. Customs and Border Protection