BOR-4-07-OT:RR:BSTC:CCR H235018 DAC
Peter A. Quinter
Gray Robinson
1221 Brickell Ave., Suite 1600
Miami, FL 33131-0014
RE: Export, self-propelled vehicles. 19 CFR §§ 192.0-192.4. 19 U.S.C. §§ 1627a, 1646a, 1646b, 1646c. 15 CFR § 758.7, 19 CFR § 161.2, 22 CFR § 127.4.
Dear Mr. Quinter:
This letter is in response to your letter of October 29, 2012, submitted on behalf of Mobizz IT Solutions LLC (“Mobizz”), a Delaware corporation doing business in Miami, Florida. In your submission you are requesting a reconsideration of the determination in HQ H228766, dated October 2, 2012, regarding the term “used” and the application of the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Regulations located at 19 CFR § 192.0-192.4, with respect to certain proposed transactions of motor vehicles. Our determination is set forth below.
FACTS:
In your submission of October 29, 2012, you submit the following facts and circumstances. Mobizz is a Delaware corporation based in Miami, Florida. Mobizz purchases new vehicles from franchised American dealerships and immediately facilitates the exportation of such vehicles to a dealer in Brazil. The dealer in Brazil later sells the vehicles to yet another party. The vehicle certificates of title are issued in the name of Mobizz. Mobizz then makes arrangements for export of the subject motor vehicles to Brazil. You also state that in some transactions, Mobizz receives the original Manufacturers Statement of Origin (MSO), but in most instances Mobizz receives the certificates of title. Additionally, we note that in your October 29, 2012 submission you again explicitly state that, “Mobizz is not a licensed dealer.” (emphasis retained). Your submission inquires whether the subject motor vehicles purchased in such transactions are considered “used” within the meaning of 19 CFR § 192.1 and thereby subject to the requirements of 19 CFR §§ 192.0-192.4.
ISSUE:
Whether the subject motor vehicles that are purchased by Mobizz from an automobile dealer franchise located in the United States, for the express purpose of export to a dealer located in Brazil that will sell the subject vehicles to yet another party, are considered “used” within the meaning of the CBP Regulations at 19 CFR § 192.1 and subject to the requirements of 19 CFR §§ 192.0-192.4.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
The relevant statutes and regulations that are directly related to the proposed transaction under consideration are located at 19 U.S.C. §§ 1627a, 1646a, 1646b, and 1646c; and 19 CFR §§ 192.0-192.4. At this time we emphasize to all parties that the export of any and all merchandise from the United States, to include the subject vehicles, must comply with all United States statutes and regulations related to exportation, whether administered by CBP or another agency. See especially 15 CFR Part 30; 15 CFR Part 700 et seq; 19 CFR Part 18; 19 CFR Part 111; 19 CFR §§ 161.2, 192.14; 22 U.S.C. §§ 401, 2780; 18 U.S.C. §§ 511, 512, 2312, 2321; and the SDN list published at: http://www.treasury.gov/ofac/downloads/ctrylst.txt. We further emphasize that this ruling is limited only to the subject proposed transaction, as described above, within the meaning of 19 U.S.C.§ 1627a and within the meaning of the CBP Regulations located at 19 CFR §§ 192.0-192.4.
The relevant statute located at 19 U.S.C. § 1627a, provides, in pertinent part:
(c) Definitions. For purposes of this section--
(1) the term “self-propelled vehicle” includes any automobile, truck, tractor, bus, motorcycle, motor home, self-propelled agricultural machinery, self-propelled construction equipment, self-propelled special use equipment, and any other self-propelled vehicle used or designed for running on land but not on rail;
…
(3) the term “used” refers to any self-propelled vehicle the equitable or legal title to which has been transferred by a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer to an ultimate purchaser; and
(4) the term “ultimate purchaser” means the first person, other than a dealer purchasing in his capacity as a dealer, who in good faith purchases a self-propelled vehicle for purposes other than resale. 19 U.S.C. § 1627a(c). (emphasis added.)
(d) Cooperation of law enforcement and governmental authorities. Customs officers may cooperate and exchange information concerning motor vehicles, off-highway mobile equipment, vessels, or aircraft, either before exportation or after exportation or importation, with such Federal, State, local, and foreign law enforcement or governmental authorities, and with such organizations engaged in theft prevention activities, as may be designated by the Secretary. (emphasis added.)
The relevant regulations located at 19 CFR §§ 192.0-192.1, provide, in pertinent part:
19 CFR § 192.0 Scope.
This part sets forth regulations pertaining to procedures for the lawful exportation of used self-propelled vehicles, vessels, and aircraft, and the penalties and liabilities incurred for failure to comply with any of the procedures. (emphasis added.)
19 CFR §192.1 Definitions.
The following are general definitions for the purposes of this subpart A.
* * *
Export. “Export” refers to the transportation of merchandise out of the U.S. for the purpose of being entered into the commerce of a foreign country.
Self-propelled vehicle. “Self-propelled vehicle” includes any automobile, truck, tractor, bus, motorcycle, motor home, self-propelled agricultural machinery, self-propelled construction equipment, self-propelled special use equipment, and any other self-propelled vehicle used or designed for running on land but not on rail.
Ultimate purchaser. “Ultimate purchaser” means the first person, other than a dealer purchasing in his capacity as a dealer, who in good faith purchases a self-propelled vehicle for purposes other than resale.
Used. “Used” refers to any self-propelled vehicle the equitable or legal title to which has been transferred by a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer to an ultimate purchaser. (italics in original). (bold emphasis added.)
In your submission you refer to the definition of “dealer” provided in 15 U.S.C. § 1231, which states that, “[t]he term ‘dealer’ shall mean any person resident or located in the United States or any Territory thereof or in the District of Columbia engaged in the sale or the distribution of new automobiles to the ultimate purchaser.” 15 U.S.C. § 1231(e). However, we also note that 15 U.S.C. § 1221, provides that, “[t]he term ‘automobile dealer’ shall mean any person, partnership, corporation, association, or other form of business enterprise resident in the United States or in any Territory thereof or in the District of Columbia operating under the terms of a franchise and engaged in the sale or distribution of passenger cars, trucks, or station wagons.” 15 U.S.C. § 1221(c). (emphasis added.) There is no claim or evidence that Mobizz is operating under a such a franchise, and moreover, in your October 29, 2012, submission you explicitly state that, “Mobizz is not a licensed dealer.” (emphasis retained.)
In your submission you claim that there is a separation between State and Federal regulatory requirements. However, we note that in order to enhance enforcement effectiveness, the statute, 19 U.S.C. § 1627a(d), explicitly states that, “Customs officers may cooperate and exchange information concerning motor vehicles, … either before exportation or after exportation or importation, with such Federal, State, local, and foreign law enforcement or governmental authorities…” (emphasis added.)
In your submission you refer to a web page located at: http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/newsroom/publications/trade/export_vehicle.ctt/exportingavehicle.doc In your submission you specifically refer to the first sentence in the following paragraph:
a vehicle will be “new” for purposes of this provision if (1) the manufacturer, distributor, or dealer retains legal and equitable title to the vehicle at the time of exportation, or (2) the manufacturer, distributor, or dealer has transferred legal or equitable title to a dealer who purchased the vehicle in his capacity as a dealer. …
However, the paragraph continues with the following language:
For example, a vehicle being exported will be considered new, and thus not subject to the provisions of Part 192, if a manufacturer sends an unsold vehicle to another of its own facilities in a foreign country to increase inventory or if a manufacturer sells a vehicle to an overseas dealer who will then sell it to an ultimate purchaser. (emphasis added.)
Furthermore, the example provided immediately after the sentence you refer to contemplates that a manufacturer is conducting the exportation. Mobizz is not a manufacturer and Mobizz is not a dealer. Additionally, in the examples and explanations provided immediately following the sentence you refer to, it is also explained that the physical condition and value of a vehicle do not determine whether the vehicle is “used” for purposes of 19 CFR §§ 192.0-192.4, as provided below:
The definition of a used vehicle, for the purposes of the reporting requirements, is not determined by the physical condition, economic value, or operating order of the self-propelled vehicle at the time of export. Conditional statements included on commercial or contractual documents do not influence the status of the vehicle as either new or used as defined in the statute. Thus, for example, a statement in a commercial transaction that says title will transfer upon delivery to the customer or at some other point after the export does not alter the definition of a used vehicle to make it “new” at the time that it was exported. (emphasis added.)
According to the facts and cirumstances presented above, the subject motor vehicles have been purchased by Mobizz from an American dealer franchise located in the United States. In your submission you explicitly state that Mobizz is not a licensed dealer. We note that 19 U.S.C. § 1627a states, “the term ‘ultimate purchaser’ means the first person, other than a dealer purchasing in his capacity as a dealer…” (emphasis added.) We further note that 19 CFR § 192.1 states, “’Ultimate purchaser’ means the first person, other than a dealer purchasing in his capacity as a dealer…” (emphasis added.) See also 19 CFR §§ 192.0-192.4. In this instance, Mobizz has explicitly stated it is not a dealer and is clearly not “a dealer purchasing in his capacity as a dealer.” Therefore, in the transaction proposed above, the subject motor vehicles are used within the meaning of 19 CFR § 192.1. Additionally, in 1999 CBP published the requirements for reporting such motor vehicles to Customs prior to exportation in the Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 65, April 6, 1999, which states explicitly that,
The question presented by these types of vehicles is whether title has been transferred by a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer to an ultimate purchaser, either legally or equitably, prior to the vehicle's exportation. If the legal or equitable title of the vehicle has been transferred prior to the vehicle's export, then the new or OEM vehicle must be reported to Customs before the vehicle can be exported; the vehicle having become ‘used’ and subject to these export reporting regulations.” 64 Fed. Reg. 16635, April 6, 1999; Vol. 64, No. 65; T.D. 99-34.
Accordingly, in light of all of the above, we find that such motor vehicles are subject to the requirements of 19 CFR §§ 192.0-192.4. See 19 U.S.C. § 1627a. See also HQ 116070, December 4, 2003; HQ H204515, May 2, 2012.
At this time we point out the relevant statutory provisions of 19 U.S.C. §§ 1627a, 1646a, 1646b and 1646c that provide for enforcement and compliance of such exports. In the course of performing their duties, CBP Officers may, based upon the facts and circumstances concerning a particular vehicle or vehicles, verify the presentation of proper documentation that shows the vehicles are actually transferred in the name of a party, to include a licensed dealer that is in possession of a valid current license, and showing that the vehicles are not “used” within the meaning of 19 CFR §§ 192.0-192.4.
HOLDING:
Based upon all of the facts and circumstances unique to this particular proposed transaction, the subject motor vehicles, as described above, are “used” vehicles within the meaning of 19 CFR § 192.1, and are thereby subject to the requirements of 19 CFR §§ 192.0-192.4. We further determine that HQ H228766, dated October 2, 2012, is affirmed.
Sincerely,
George Frederick McCray
Supervisory Attorney-Advisor/Chief
Cargo Security, Carriers and Restricted Merchandise Branch
Office of International Trade, Regulations & Rulings
U.S. Customs and Border Protection