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

Ruling of the Week 2015.8: Old Jersey and Pitcairn Island

Image
For today's ROTW, I set out looking for a ruling dealing with some far off and preferably warm location. Turns out that, with the exception of coastwise transit issues, there are no Customs and Border Protection rulings involving Pitcairn Island or any of several Pacific Ocean microstates including Tuvalu , Niue , and Kiribati . Pitcairn Island What I did find is an interesting question about the country of origin marking for products of the Bailiwick of Jersey Island, Channel Islands. The ruling is HQ 561938 (Mar. 18, 2002). For those of you who may not know, Jersey is an island off the coast of Normandy, France. It is an independent international actor and not part of the U.K. although the U.K. is responsible for its defense and external relations. Also, the Queen is the Head of State in her capacity as "the Crown in Right of Jersey." It is, according to the U.S. Department of State, a " Crown Dependency " along with the Isle of Man and the Bailiwick o...
Read more

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

Ninestar and UFLPA Exhaustion

Image
Exhaustion is a key doctrine in administrative law. When applicable, it requires that a party unhappy with an agency’s determination complete the administrative appeal process before turning to the courts for judicial review. Requiring exhaustion typically promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring that disputes are resolved at the agency and, if they are not, that there is a complete record of the agency process. Exhaustion also ensures that the judiciary respects the executive agencies and their expertise.  There are, on the other hand, times when the courts will find that exhaustion is not necessary or appropriate. Such is the case in  Ninestar Corporation et al. v. United States  et al., a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade.  Ninestar is also interesting because it is one of the first cases in the CIT involving the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, known as UFLPA. In my hiatus from active blogging, I missed the rise of UFLPA as a major compliance t...
Read more