HQ 110756: Use of a foreign vessel to lay cable in U.S. waters

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 110756

                        January 26, 1990

VES-3-01 CO:R:P:C:  110756 LLB

CATEGORY: Carriers

Mr. K. A. Grainger
Harmstorf Corporation
60 East 42nd Street
New York, New York 10165

RE:  Use of a foreign vessel to lay cable in U.S. waters

Dear Mr. Grainger:

     This is with reference to your letter of January 2, 1990,
concerning the proposed operation of a foreign cable-laying
vessel in U.S. waters.

FACTS:

     It is proposed to use a Norwegian-flag vessel to lay cable
across the Cook Inlet, Alaska.  A French-flag cargo vessel would
arrive from a foreign location with three cable containers
weighing 400 tons, and would transship those containers to the
Norwegian cable laying vessel in either Seattle or Los Angeles.
The Norwegian vessel would then proceed to Cook Inlet and lay the
three cables across the Inlet.  The cables would be transshipped
in Seattle or Los Angeles for the reason that there is no 400 ton
lift-capacity facility in Alaska.

ISSUE:

     Is either the transshipment of cable arriving from a foreign
port, between two foreign-flag vessels in a U.S. port, or the
laying of that cable between U.S. points a violation of the Jones
Act merchandise statute, 46 U.S.C. App. 883.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     Section 883, title 46, United States Code Appendix,
prohibits the transportation of merchandise between ports or
places in the United States on a vessel not documented for the
coastwise trade.  The Customs Service has consistently held that
the laying of underwater cable between two points embraced within
the coastwise laws of the United States by a foreign vessel is
                                2

not a violation of any law administered by this agency. such a
vessel, however, could not be used to transport the cable between
U.S. points by lading it at one point and unlading it at another.
It is the fact that the cable is not landed as cargo, but only
paid out in the course of the laying operation, which makes the
activity permissible.

HOLDING:

     After thorough analysis of the facts and applicable law in
this case, we have determined that the proposed transshipment and
laying of cable, as outlined above, would not constitute a
violation of 46 U.S.C. App. 883.

                                Sincerely,




                                B. James Fritz
                                Chief
                                Carrier Rulings Branch