Ship Repairs Are Merchandise

This for for all you carriers, ship owners, and yachters out there.

General practice and business lawyers often overlook customs and trade law as a practice area. Even those in the practice think of it as a narrow field.  But, an odd thing about customs and trade law is that even within the narrow confines of the practice, there are sub-specialties.  Some folks do more import than export, some people spend a lot of time on free trade agreements, others are computed value mavens.  Of course, we all do all those things, but it is fair to say that becoming a real expert in one or two things takes a certain amount of focus.  

One of the more obscure issues in customs law is the dutiability of the value of repairs done on vessels.  A similarly obscure issue is whether certain voyages do or do not violate the coastwise shipping laws.  These issues generate a lot of Customs and Border Protection rulings, but not many court cases.

Which is all by way of introduction to Cormorant Shipholding Corp. v. United States, a recent decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade on the dutiability of ship repairs.  The M/V American Cormorant is an American-flagged vessel.  [Check out this exceedingly cool picture of the ship transporting at least five amphibious landing vehicles.]  The law provides for a 50% tariff on the value of vessel repairs performed abroad on an American-documented ship. Customs assessed more than $5 million in duties on repairs to this ship, which the owner protested for various reasons.  The protest was denied and the owner filed a suit, which prompted two counterclaims from the government seeking additional duties.

The substantive issue involves an exception to the general rule of dutiablity.  The exception is that repairs undertaken more than six months after the departure of the ship from the U.S. are exempt.  So, the question revolves around whether the owner can prove the departure date and the date of the repairs.  Unfortunately, this opinion does not go to the merits but to the owner's motion to dismiss the counterclaims.

Section 1583 of Title 28 of the US Code give the Court of International Trade jurisdiction over counterclaims asserted by the government that involve the "imported merchandise that is the subject" of the main case.  CSC, the vessel owner, moved to dismiss the counterclaim arguing that vessel repairs are not imported "merchandise."  This seems to be a rational argument based on a normal English understanding of the word merchandise.  Unfortunately, the law often does not comport with the language.  Looking to several dictionaries, the Court found that merchandise is something sold in commerce.  At least one definition specifically included services.  In addition, there are several places throughout the law and regulations that seem to include vessel repairs in the broader category of merchandise.  There are also counter examples, including the Tariff Schedule, which uses the construction "Tariff Treatment of Imported Goods and of Vessel Equipments, Parts and Repairs."  While this clearly distinguishes repairs from goods, it does not necessarily follow that both repairs and goods are not "merchandise" for tariff purposes.  [That's my analysis, not the Court's.]

The Court was also unmoved by CSC's argument that the counterclaims involved different merchandise than what was covered by the protests.

Thus, the motion to dismiss was denied, which sets up what might be an interesting future decision on the merits.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl
Read more

Target on Finality

Image
In the last post , about the Federal Circuit’s very important decision on due process and allegations of evasion of antidumping duties, I made a snarky, offhand comment that the government believes “liquidation is magic.” That was in the context of the government arguing that Customs’ liquidation of entries mooted an appeal, thereby taking away the importer’s right to further judicial review. I said that knowing full well that I still needed to write this post summarizing Target Corp. v. United States in which Target made what I want to be a valid and righteous argument that Customs’ improper liquidation of entries at a favorable rate of antidumping duty prevents the Court of International Trade from ordering Customs to collect the legally applicable duties. But it turns out that while liquidation is an important legal step, in at least one unusual circumstance it is not sufficiently powerful to overcome the full force of an Article III court. Understanding this case requires a lot
Read more

CAFC: EAPA Process Really Does Violate Due Process

Image
Hot on the heels of my complaining about how the EAPA law and process is stacked against importers, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an important decision that will have a major impact on how those cases work. If you are unfamiliar with evasion cases under the Enforce and Protect Act and how Customs and Border Protection handles them, go back and look at these two posts: Part 1 , Part 2. Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States , is the decision in an evasion case against Royal Brush involving pencils allegedly transshipped from China through the Philippines. Customs determined that there was evasion of an antidumping duty order based in part on evidence that was not disclosed to Royal. Specifically, Customs sent a representative to the facility in the Philippines to photograph the interior and provide a report. Customs refused to disclose all the photographs to Royal. Moreover, CBP's report concluded that the facility did not have sufficient capacit
Read more