HQ 111937: Entry and clearance; Premature discharge of merchandise; Movement in bond; Manifested destination; Bill of lading; Inward foreign cargo; Movement by alternative means; Manifest discrepancy report

Native CBP ruling rendition. Applicability is fact-specific; modification/revocation relationships and original publisher date are retained. Publisher sentinel year0001 means unknown date, not a historical legal adoption.

                            HQ 111937

                        February 24, 1992


VES-5-19-CO:R:IT:C  111937 LLB

CATEGORY:  Carriers           

Mr. William E. Vajda
Daniel F. Young, Inc.
17 Battery Place North
New York, New York 10004

RE:  Entry and clearance; Premature discharge of merchandise;
     Movement in bond; Manifested destination; Bill of lading;
     Inward foreign cargo; Movement by alternative means;
     Manifest discrepancy report

Dear Mr. Vajda:

     Reference is made to your letter of October 7, 1991, in
which you request that we offer an interpretation of the
regulatory provisions concerning vessel cargo which is
prematurely landed in a port of the United States.  

FACTS:

     It is stated that on September 30, 1991, the vessel SEALAND
VALUE arrived in the port of New York directly from a foreign
port.  The vessel discharged cargo there and departed for the
next scheduled port, Norfolk, Virginia.  It was discovered that
two containers manifested for Norfolk had been prematurely
discharged in New York.  Since one of the containers  was
actually on a through bill of lading to Baltimore, it was decided
to forward the container from New York to Baltimore in bond, via
truck, in lieu of lading it on the next available Sea-Land owned
or leased vessel.  Customs officials in Norfolk reportedly found
that such a procedure was improper and that the Baltimore-bound
container must, if shipped via truck, travel under special
manifest procedures as provided in the Customs Regulations.  The
question posed is whether the position taken by Norfolk Customs
is correct.

ISSUE:

     Whether merchandise which is prematurely landed by a vessel
may be transported, by means other than by another company-owned
or chartered vessel, to a location other than the originally
manifested port of entry.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:      

     Section 4.34(a), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 4.34(a)),
contains procedures applicable to the disposition of prematurely
discharged cargo.  The section provides that upon receipt of a
satisfactory written application, the district director at the
port of premature discharge may permit the inward foreign cargo
to be moved by alternative means.  Provided the importing vessel
actually entered the port that the prematurely discharged cargo
was manifested for discharge, the cargo may be reladen on the
next available vessel owned or chartered by the owner of the
first vessel for transportation to the originally intended port.
Alternatively, cargo not so forwarded within 30 days of unlading
may be forwarded in bond by means other than such owned or
chartered vessel.  If such alternative movement is to be a
movement by land rather than sea, resort to the provisions of
Part 18, Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 18), becomes necessary.

     Section 18.10a, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 18.10a),
provides special manifest provisions applicable to circumstances
where no other type of bonded movement is appropriate. 
Specifically stated as being among those circumstances is the
case of prematurely discharged merchandise, as is here under
consideration.  The section provides that prematurely discharged
cargo may be moved from the port of premature discharge to the
destination shown on the original vessel manifest.  In the
present case, a literal reading of the regulations would require
that the merchandise move in bond from New York to Norfolk, not
to Baltimore.  
 
     Inquiry must be made into the underlying purpose of the
regulatory provisions.  This is so because the question naturally
occurs as to what interest Customs might have in this merchandise
physically entering Norfolk, so long as the revenue is adequately
protected.  In this case, under section 1434(a), the importing
entity (Sea-Land) would be required to execute a Cargo
Declaration (CF 1302), in duplicate, at the port of discharge
(New York).  New York Customs would retain the original and
forward the duplicate copy to Norfolk (the manifested port). 
This would act to rectify the record in both ports with regard to
the discrepancies between what was manifested for each port and
what was actually landed in each.  Further, the merchandise would
be sent to Customs Custody under bond, which bond obligation
would be discharged upon delivery into that custody.  Thus would
control over the movement of the merchandise within the United
States have been controlled and the revenue protected.

     The present special manifest provisions appearing in section
18.10a, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 18.10a), were created by
Treasury Decision 83-218 (T.D. 83-218).  The purpose of the
provision was to benefit the importer of merchandise which had
either been prematurely landed or overcarried and had been the
subject of an entry summary at the port where it was originally
manifested.  In such cases, the regulation permits the importer
or carrier to include the returned merchandise in the original
entry summary previously filed at the manifested port and to
obtain the rate of duty applicable to that entry.  The regulation
is not intended to create a rigid requirement that all
prematurely discharged or overcarried merchandise be physically
delivered to the manifested port.

HOLDING:

     Merchandise which has been prematurely discharged at a port
in the United States and which has not been entered for
consumption may be transported under bond for entry, to a port
other than the port for which the merchandise was originally
manifested.


                              Sincerely, 




                              B. James Fritz
                              Chief