BON-3-02 CO:R:C:E 224057 TLS
Mr. Robert J. Williams
General Steamship Corporation
One California Street Suite 2000
San Francisco, California 94111-5421
RE: Extent of coverage of an international customs carrier bond;
19 U.S.C. 1623; 19 CFR 113.64; 8 U.S.C. 1103.
Dear Mr. Williams:
We have received your request for information concerning the
above-mentioned issue. After considering the points raised in
your letter dated July 6, 1992, we have reached the following
conclusions.
You correctly note that 19 U.S.C. 1623 does not specifically
authorize Customs to charge Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) penalties against the international carrier bond.
Nevertheless, we point your attention to subsection (d) of the
same section. Under 19 U.S.C. 1623(d), the following is provided
for:
No condition in any bond taken to assure compliance
with any law, regulation, or instruction which the
Secretary of the Treasury or the Customs Service is
authorized to enforce shall be held invalid on the
ground that such condition is not specified in the law,
regulation, or instruction authorizing or requiring the
taking of such bond. (Emphasis added.)
The language is clear. Where Customs is authorized to enforce a
law, regulation, or instruction, it may utilize a bond
established under its authority to do so. Furthermore, 19 CFR
113.64(a) states that a penalty, duty, tax, or other charge
provided by law or regulation that is incurred under
international carrier bond shall be paid by the master, owner, or
person in charge of the vessel. It does not specify that only
Customs laws are to be enforced under such bond.
The issue at this point is whether the Government,
specifically the Customs Service, is limited to exclusive
reliance on either the International Carrier Bond or the bond
taken on Form I-310. While the latter bond is expressly taken to
insure that the Government does not suffer the repatriation
costs, both paragraph (a) and paragraph (e) of the International
Carrier Bond (19 CFR 113.64(a) and (e)) provide coverage broad
enough to cover the situation posed in your letter.
We disagree that the language "If any vessel..., or any
master, owner or person in charge of a vessel,... incurs... a
charge provided by law or regulation..." is limited to the Tariff
Act of 1930 and the regulations which implement that Act.
Furthermore, repatriation costs incurred by the Government fall
within "any expense arising out entry or clearance of the
carrier."
Under 8 U.S.C. 1103, the powers and duties of the Attorney
General and Commissioner of INS are delineated. Among the many
powers outlined, the Attorney General is charged with the
administration and enforcement of all laws relating to the
immigration and naturalization of aliens. To that end, the
Attorney General "is authorized to confer or impose upon any
employee of the United States, with the consent of the head of
the Department [of State] or other independent establishment
under whose jurisdiction the employee is serving, any of the
powers, privileges, or duties conferred or imposed by [INS laws]
or regulations issued thereunder upon officers or employees of
the Service. (Emphasis added.)
The foregoing would suggest that Customs officials can be
authorized, or even required, to enforce the INS laws and
regulations. The consent of the Department of State or
alternatively in this case, the Customs Service would be needed.
As for the status of the Customs bond in light of non-
compliance with the INS fine in this case, 19 CFR 113.52 provides
guidance on this issue. Under 19 CFR 113.52, the following is
provided for:
If any Customs bond, except one given only for the
production of free-entry or reduced-duty documents, is
unsatisfied upon the expiration of 90 days after
liability has accrued under the bond, the matter shall
be reported to the Department of Justice for
prosecution unless measures have been taken to file an
application for relief or protest in accordance with
the provisions of this chapter or to satisfactorily
settle the matter. See also 19 CFR 113.51.
Thus, the bond in question could be subject to cancellation and
further penalties and fines could accrue. Part 113 of the
Customs Regulations provides more detailed information on the
cancellation of bonds; Part 174 provides information on what
should be done to formally protest a Customs decision. For more
information, you might wish to contact INS concerning its
delegation of authority procedures.
Sincerely,
William G. Rosoff, Chief