HQ 223759: Transportation Entry; Prematurely Landed Cargo; Special Manifest; 19 U.S.C. 1315; 19 U.S.C. 1552; 19 CFR 4.34(a); 19 CFR 18.10a

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 223759

                         March 11, 1992

TRA-7-CO:R:C:E 223759 PH

CATEGORY:  Entry

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

RE:  Transportation Entry; Prematurely Landed Cargo; Special
     Manifest; 19 U.S.C. 1315; 19 U.S.C. 1552; 19 CFR 4.34(a); 19
     CFR 18.10a

Dear Mr. Vajda:

     In your letter of October 7, 1991, to the attention of the
Carrier Rulings Branch, you requested a ruling on the
interpretation of 19 CFR 4.34(a) as it applies to prematurely
landed cargo.  Your letter has been forwarded to this Division
for direct response.  Our ruling follows.

FACTS:

     You state that on September 30, 1991, a vessel arrived at
the port of New York with cargo manifested for New York and
Norfolk, Virginia.  The vessel was cleared and departed for
Norfolk on October 1, 1991.  After departure from New York, it
was discovered that two containers manifested for Norfolk had
been prematurely landed in New York.

     Because one of the containers prematurely landed in New York
was on a through bill of lading to Baltimore, it was decided to
forgo the option of lading the container on the next available
vessel owned or chartered by the owner of the importing vessel
(see 19 CFR 4.34(a)) and, instead, transport the container in
bond to Baltimore.  In Baltimore it was intended that the
importer would make the appropriate entry.  You state that you
were advised that, pursuant to 19 CFR 4.34(a) and 19 CFR 18.10a,
the prematurely landed container would be required to be
physically moved to the manifested port of discharge (Norfolk)
before being transported to Baltimore. 

ISSUE:

     May merchandise which is prematurely landed from an
importing vessel be transported under an entry for immediate
transportation to a port other than the port of original
destination?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     Prematurely landed cargo is cargo arriving in the United
States which is unladed from the importing carrier at a United
States port which the vessel visits before visiting the port for
which the cargo is manifested.  For example, if a vessel arriving
from foreign lands cargo manifested for Norfolk at New York
before the vessels proceeds to Norfolk, that cargo would be
prematurely landed cargo.  The premature landing of cargo may
result in penalties for manifest violations under 19 U.S.C. 1584
(see 19 CFR 4.12).  This ruling does not address the applicabil-
ity of penalties as a result of the premature landing of cargo.

     Section 4.34(a) of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 4.34(a))
provides special procedures for cargo which was prematurely
landed from a vessel and erroneously left behind by the importing
vessel.  Under these procedures, if permitted by the district
director, the cargo may be transported to the original port of
destination by the next available vessel owned or chartered by
the owner of the importing vessel, provided that the importing
vessel actually entered the original port of destination of the
cargo.  If this alternative is not taken, the cargo is required
to be appropriately entered at the port of premature landing,
forwarded in bond, or sent to general order as unclaimed.  If the
cargo is entered at the port of premature landing or forwarded in
bond from that port, the representatives of the importing vessel
are required to file at the port of premature landing a Cargo
Declaration in duplicate, the original of which the district
director retains and the duplicate of which the district director
forwards to the originally intended port of discharge.

     Section 18.10a of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 18.10a)
provides procedures for a special manifest.  Under this
provision, merchandise for which no other type of bonded movement
is appropriate ("e.g., prematurely discharged or over[-]carried
merchandise and other such types of movement whereby the normal
transportation in bond procedures are not applicable") may be
shipped in bond from the port of unlading "to the destination
shown on the importing carrier's manifest (manifested port)" when
authorized by Customs.  Under paragraph (b) of this provision,
written application is to be made to the district director where
the merchandise is being held for permission to transport the
merchandise under a special manifest to the manifested port.

     Section 18.10a was added to the Customs Regulations by
Treasury Decision (T.D.) 54544 (1958).  The provision was amended
by T.D. 83-218.  As is made clear by the background to the latter
T.D. (see, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in the Federal
Register on January 25, 1983 (48 F.R. 3379), Legal Determination
3550-06, ruling 711164, dated October 18, 1979), the intent of
this provision was to provide a procedure under which merchandise
covered by the procedure could be included in a consumption entry
already filed at the manifested port and subject to the rates of
duty applicable in that consumption entry.  This is explicitly
stated in T.D. 83-218 (see, under SUMMARY, "[t]he use of these
manifest procedures ... allows the importer or carrier to include
the returned merchandise in the original entry summary previously
filed at the manifested port and obtain the rate of duty
applicable to that entry"; see also, second paragraph under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, Background).

     Clearly, if the special manifest procedures in section
18.10a are used, the merchandise must be actually transported to
the original port of destination (i.e., the "manifested port"),
as explicitly provided in section 18.10a (see above).  However,
merchandise which is prematurely landed is not required to be
subject to the special manifest procedures in section 18.10a. 
Such merchandise may be transported to a port other than the
"manifested port" under the usual procedures for immediate
transportation (see 19 U.S.C. 1552; 19 CFR Part 18, particularly
sections 18.11 and 18.12).  If the merchandise is so transported,
it may not be entered for consumption on the consumption entry
filed at the manifested port for the merchandise which is not
prematurely landed, as would be the case under section 18.10a. 
Instead, the merchandise would be required to be entered on a
separate consumption entry and, assuming that no quantitative or
tariff-rate quota was applicable, the applicable rates of duty
would be those effective when the transportation entry was
accepted at the port of original importation (i.e., the port of
premature landing) (see 19 U.S.C. 1315(a)(2) 19 CFR 141.69(b)). 
This is explicitly so provided in T.D. 83-218 and the ruling
cited in that T.D. (ruling 711164, cited above).

     If it is elected to transport prematurely landed merchandise
under an entry for immediate transportation, the representatives
of the importing vessel would be required to file at the port of
premature landing a Cargo Declaration which the district director
at that port handles in accordance with 19 CFR 4.34(a).  Also,
the usual procedures for transportation in bond would be
applicable to the movement (see 19 CFR part 18, particularly
sections 18.11 and 18.12).

HOLDINGS:

     (1)  Merchandise which is prematurely landed from an
importing vessel may be transported under an entry for immediate
transportation to a port other than the port of original
destination, under the procedures and conditions described in the
LAW AND ANALYSIS section of this ruling.

     (2)  Merchandise which is prematurely landed from an
importing vessel and which is transported under the special
manifest procedures provided for in 19 CFR 18.10a must be
transported to the port of original destination (i.e., the
"manifested port").

     (The premature landing of cargo may result in penalties
     for manifesting violations under 19 U.S.C. 1584 (see 19
     CFR 4.12).  This ruling does not address the
     applicability of such penalties.)

                              Sincerely,




                              John Durant, Director