HQ 221471: Reimportation of Stolen Vehicles

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 221471

                             June 12, 1989

ENT-1-03-CO:R:C:E 221471 TG

CATEGORY:  Other

District Director of Customs
4430 E. Adamo Dr., Suite 301
Tampa, Florida 33605

RE:  Reimportation of Stolen Vehicles

Dear Ms. Zwicker:

     The following is in response to your letter requesting a
ruling on whether an importer must pay duty a second time, if the
units involved were criminally exported with apparently false
documentation.

FACTS:  The facts involve a situation where five automobiles were
stolen in the United States and exported into Bremerhaven, West
Germany.  All five automobiles were owned by Alamo Rent-A-Car
Company.  The units were shipped from Newark, New Jersey to West
Germany and were seized by the West German police in
Bremerhaven.  The automobiles included four Volvos and one
Chevrolet Corsica.  Duty has been paid on the four Volvos.


ISSUE:  Whether the importer must pay duty on reimportation, if
the vehicles were criminally exported with apparently false
documentation.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:  Under 19 C.F.R. 123.72, the District Director
can admit without entry and payment of duty allegedly stolen or
embezzled vehicles, trailers, airplanes, or component parts of
any of them, under the provisions of the The Convention between
the United States of America and the United Mexican States for
the Recovery and Return of Stolen or Embezzled Vehicles and
Aircraft of June 28, 1983.

     The regulations are silent as to the extension of this
provision to other nations.  However, the facts in this case were
exactly what 19 C.F.R. 123.72 contemplated. Moreover, the case
law also supports use of an analogous procedure to the extent
possible.

     In  C.M.Snow v. United States, T.D. 46772 (1933), the Court
found that "inasmuch as possession of the automobile in question
was obtained in an illegal, fraudulent, and felonious manner and
it, by reason and by perpetration thereof, was taken outside the
confines of the United States without the consent on the part of
the owner thereof, the same was never legally exported from the
                            -2-

United States and imported into Canada, and therefore the
repossession and return of said automobile was not an importation
of merchandise exported to this country."

     In Eastman Kodak Co.v. U.S., T.D. 40309- GA. 8831(1924), the
Court stated that the authorities seem to be clear that there can
be no importation without an intent to import.  "In other words,
if goods arrive in the country through inadvertance or mistake it
is not held to be an importation which subjects them to the
payment of duty...Conversely, we are of the opinion that no
exportation could be made without an intent on the part of the
person authorized to export."

     In the present case, there was no exportation because there
was no intent on the part of the persons authorized to export and
since there was no exportation, there can be no importation.

     There are a line of cases which appear to the contrary but
which may be distinguished from the facts in this case.  For
example, in William Alberts Motor Co. v. U.S., T.D. 43072(1928),
the Court held that an automobile manufactured in the U.S. and
taken to a foreign country by the person in rightful possession,
contrary to agreement with the legal owner, and by him sold while
abroad, is not free of duty as American goods returned, under
paragraph 1514, Tariff Act of 1922, when brought back into the
U.S. by the legal owner. The law provides that in order to enter
returned American products free of duty they must be imported by
or for the account of the person who exported them from the U.S.

      In another case, the purchaser of the car, who at the time
of purchase became the rightful possessor thereof, took the car
to British Columbia.  He took it there as his property.  The
Court found that he was the legal exporter.  Up to the time that
the merchandise was imported into Canada no one had challenged
the exporter's legal possession of the automobile.  His rightful
possession was not questioned until the car was seized.  The
seller's immediate right of possession unless exercised, does not
deprive the buyer of his rightful possession. (Abstract 10677,
1930)

      The present case can be distinguished from these cases
since four of the five cars here were not American products and
they were not in the hands of a rightful possessor.  Alamo, as
the rightful possessor and legal owner, did not have the intent
to export.  The automobiles were obtained in an illegal manner
and were taken outside of the United States without the consent
of the owner.  They were never legally exported from the United
States and therefore the repossession and return of these
automobiles was not an importation of merchandise exported to
this country.




                               -3-

HOLDING: Articles sent to a foreign country by a thief are not
exported for Customs purposes.  The return of those articles to
the United States by the rightful owner therefore is not an
importation.  The District Director may admit without entry and
payment of duty stolen or embezzled vehicles that are returned to
the United States by the rightful owner using the procedures set
forth in 19 C.F.R. 123.72.


                               Sincerely,



                                John Durant
                                Director
                                Commercial Rulings Division