American Mail Line, Ltd. v. United States

34 Cust. Ct. 197
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedMay 19, 1955
DocketC. D. 1704
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 34 Cust. Ct. 197 (American Mail Line, Ltd. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Customs Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
American Mail Line, Ltd. v. United States, 34 Cust. Ct. 197 (cusc 1955).

Opinion

JohnsoN, Judge:

These are protests against the collector's assessment of duty on the cost of dunnage and other items of material and labor at the rate of 50 per centum ad valorem under section 466 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as the cost of equipments purchased or repairs made in a foreign country upon vessels documented under the laws of the United States to engage in the foreign or coasting trade. It is claimed that these items are not dutiable under said section, which reads as follows:

SEC. 466. EQUIPMENT AND REPAIRS OF VESSELS.
Sections 3114 and 3115 of the Revised Statutes, as amended by the Tariff Act of 1922, are amended to read as follows:
“Sec. 3114. The equipments, or any part thereof, including boats, purchased for, or the repair parts or materials to be used, or the expenses of repairs made in a foreign country upon a vessel documented under the laws of the United States to engage in the foreign or coasting trade, or a vessel intended to be employed in such trade, shall, on the first arrival of such vessel in any port of the United States, be liable to entry and the payment of an ad valorem duty of 50 per centum on the cost thereof in such foreign country; and if the owner or master of such vessel shall willfully and knowingly neglect or fail to report, make entry, and pay duties as herein required, such vessel, with her tackle, apparel, and furniture, shall be seized and forfeited. For the purposes of this section, compensation paid to members of the regular crew of such vessel in connection with the installation of any such equipments or any part thereof, or the making of repairs, in a foreign country, shall not be included in the cost of such equipment or part thereof, or of such repairs.”
ifs ‡ * *

[199]*199These cases have been submitted upon a stipulation limiting the claims to the following items:

Protest No. 180335-K, entry No. V-207:
Item 3: Labor loading dunnage_ $47.30
Item 4: Labor laying dunnage and paper_ 74. 01
Protest No. 180336-K, entry No. V-216-:
Item 2: Labor handling dunnage (less cost of dunnage)_ 22. 55
Item 3: Rental jitney and driver_ 19. 00
Item 5: Labor handling dunnage and paper_ 107. 00
Protest No. 180337-K, entry No. V-219:
Item 2: Cost of labor handling paper and dunnage (less other charges)_ 14. 71
Item 3: Shoring cargo all holds and TD’s and building cat-walk fore and aft (less labor for constructing cat-walks)_819. 60
Protest No. 180338-K, entry No. V-220:
Item 1: Shoring cargo in holds (less cost of materials)_ 280. 09
Item 3: Labor laying dunnage and paper_ 84. 67
Protest No. 180339-K, entry No. V-224:
Item 1: Laying dunnage and moving dunnage_ 849.68
Protest No. 180340-K, entry No. V — 225:
Item 3: Labor cost handling dunnage and labor laying dunnage and paper in holds._ 22.48
Item 4: Sweeping and cleaning holds, laying dunnage (less cost of materials)_ 473. 48
Protest No. 180341-K, entry No. V-226:
Item 2: Laying dunnage (less cost of materials)_ 200. 00
Item 4: Labor costs laying paper_ 15. 16
Protest No. 180342-K, entry No. V-243:
Item 2: Cost of labor laying paper and dunnage_ 8. 91
Protest No. 180345-K, entry No. Y-255:
Item 2: Labor costs laying paper_ 31. 20
Protest No. 207689-K, entry No. V-22-D:
Item 4: Shoring cargo (less cost of material)_ 166. 21

On the basis of the description of the work given in the stipulation, the items may be grouped as follows:

A. Labor charges for handling and laying dunnage and paper aboard ship preparatory to loading and stowing general (not bulk) cargo, or moving dunnage and paper from one part of a vessel to another preparatory to laying the same. Protest No. 180335-K (items 3 and 4); protest No. 180336-K (items 2 and 5); protest No. 180337-K (item 2); protest No. 180338-K (item 3); protest No. [200]*200180339-K (item 1); protest No. 180340-K (item 3); protest No. 180341-K (items 2 and 4); protest No. 180342-K (item 2); protest No. 180345-K (item 2).

B. The charge for rental of jitney and driver to move dunnage on the dock. Protest No. 180336-K (item 3).

C. Labor charges for t shoring or securing and bracing general (not bulk) cargo. Protest No. 180337-K (item 3); protest No. 180338-K (item 1); protest No. 207689-K (item 4).

D. The charge for sweeping and cleaning the holds of a vessel and laying dunnage prior to the stowing of cargo. Protest No. 180340-K (item 4).

In connection with its claims that these items are not dutiable, plaintiff has quoted the two following rulings in its brief:

[Office circular No. 2173, issued by the collector at Seattle on July 1, 1952]:
The following quotation from a decision lately rendered by the Bureau of Customs is of interest to all ports and to Customhouse brokers.
The labor cost charged by stevedores in placing cocoa mats and similar items of dunnage which have either been purchased locally or supplied by the vessel is not dutiable under Section 466. However, the mere laying or placing of dunnage is distinguishable from the operation of building or erecting shifting boards or special devices for the carriage of cargo which are regarded as ships equipments. The burden is upon the operator to require invoices from stevedoring firms segregating the cost of labor to particular operations if it desires that no duty be assessed on the cost of labor involved in the mere laying or placing of dunnage.
[Bulletin of the collector at Portland, issued July 1, 1953]:
It appears that there may be a misunderstanding between this office and steamship companies as to the dutiable status of materials purchased and installed abroad in connection with the carriage of cargo.
It is the opinion of this office, based on court decisions and bureau rulings, that the cost of building or erecting of shifting boards and/or feeder boxes or other special devices, including labor and incidental materials, for the carriage of cargo is regarded as ship’s equipment and dutiable under section 466, Tariff Act of 1930, whether same be described on the invoices or entries under any other description or term, such as “shoring”, etc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Northern Steamship Co. v. United States
54 Cust. Ct. 92 (U.S. Customs Court, 1965)
American Mail Line, Ltd. v. United States
35 Cust. Ct. 142 (U.S. Customs Court, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 Cust. Ct. 197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-mail-line-ltd-v-united-states-cusc-1955.