United States International Trade Commision Rulings And Harmonized Tariff Schedule
faqs.org  Rulings By Number  Rulings By Category  Tariff Numbers
faqs.org > Rulings and Tariffs Home > Rulings By Number > 2007 HQ Rulings > HQ H016992 - HQ H017887 > HQ H017062

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ H017062

September 14, 2007

VES-3-02-RR:BSTC:CCI H017062 CK


John Cantley
Norton Lilly International
6001 Chatham Center Drive
Suite 330
Savannah, GA 31405

RE: Coastwise transportation; passengers; 46 U.S.C. §55103

Dear Mr. Cantley:

In your letter transmitted by facsimile on September 14, 2007, you requested that three employees of Schlussel Reederei KG (GmbH & Co.) be allowed to travel aboard the non-coastwise-qualified M/V APL CHILE from Savannah, GA to New York, NY. Our ruling on your request follows.


You requested that three employees of Schlussel Reederei KG (GmbH & Co.) be allowed to travel aboard the non-coastwise-qualified M/V APL CHILE on a voyage from Savannah, GA to New York, NY. These three individuals would embark on September 18, 2007 at Savannah, GA and disembark on September 21, 2007 in New York, NY. The three individuals are boarding to perform boiler repairs.


Whether the three individuals described above would be passengers under the coastwise passenger statute, 46 U.S.C. §55103.


The coastwise passenger statute, 46 U.S.C. §55103(recodified from former 46 U.S.C. App. 289; Pub.L. 109-304 October 6, 2006) provides that no vessel may transport passengers between ports or places in the United States either directly or by way of a foreign port, upon a penalty of $300 for every passenger so transported and landed (see 19 CFR 4.80(b), unless it has been documented for the coastwise trade under chapter 121 of Title 46, United States Code. Under section 55103 (see 19 CFR 4.80a(a)(5)), a “passenger” is any person carried aboard a vessel who is not connected with the operation of the vessel, her navigation, ownership, or business (19 CFR 4.50(b)). In this regard, as resolved in a June 5, 2002, Customs Bulletin notice (Vol. 36, No. 23, p. 50, persons transported on a vessel would be passengers unless they were “directly and substantially” connected with the operation, navigation, ownership, or business of that vessel itself. In the current context, Headquarters ruling (HQ) 116752, of November 3, 2006, is instructive in explaining the operative administrative law applicable in this context, as follows:

[T]he Customs Service [now Customs and Border Protection (CBP)] has repeatedly ruled that if any persons are transported coastwise who are bona fide agents of the line or officers of companies acting as such agents and if such persons while on the voyage are concerned with observing and appraising the facilities offered, such personsare not ‘passengers’ under section 289 [now section 55103] and §4.50(b) (emphasis added) (HQ 103410, of May 5, 1978 (operations manager of freight line transported coastwise aboard freight line’s vessel to observe vessel’s operational pattern thereby deemed connected with operation and business of vessel so as not to be passenger when being transported for this purpose)).

HQ 116752 (emphasis added) (executive chef of cruise line transported aboard its vessel “to monitor and access the standards of [vessel’s culinary operation onboard” found to be connected with that vessel’s operation/business, and not considered passenger).

Further we note that in accordance with previous Headquarters rulings, workmen, technicians, or observers transported by vessel between ports of the United States are not classified as “passengers” within the meaning of section 4.50(b) and 46 U.S.C. §55103 if they are required to be on board to contribute to the accomplishment of the operation or navigation of the vessel during the voyage, or are on board because of a necessary vessel ownership or business interest during the voyage. HQ 101699 (November 5, 1975); see also HQ 116721 (September 25, 2006, quoting HQ 101699).

In the present case, the three employees of Schlussel Reederei KG (GmbH & Co.) boarding the vessel to make boiler repairs are directly and substantially connected to the operation of the vessel and these individuals are therefore not passengers for purposes of 46 U.S.C. §55103.


Under the facts presented, the three individuals described above are not passengers for purposes of administering 46 U.S.C. §55103. Hence, the proposed coastwise transportation of the three individuals aboard the M/V APL CHILE would not be in violation of 46 U.S.C. §55103.


Glen E. Vereb

Previous Ruling Next Ruling