Ross Herbert wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:26:29 GMT, Joerg
wrote:
Strange. The protection WRT shipping from one internal port to
another is what most countries do. But import bans would be weird. So
he was forbidden to have that yacht moored here because it was made
in Australia? Then I really wonder why that wouldn't apply to
aircraft, cars etc.
I suppose that the definition of "merchandise" would have some bearing
on the application of the policy. It would be difficult for a foreign
built vessel costing $70M to travel between ports in the US while NOT
transporting goods which could be classed as "merchandise". It's a
cover-all term to eliminate competition....
Nah, they just have to make sure that all bottles of Chateauneuf and
Pommery have been consumed before arriving at another port ;-)
Then there is the point that the vessel MUST be BUILT in the US and
OWNED by a US citizen in order to transport merchandise. Since Greg
Norman is an Australian citizen, then owning a foreign built vessel
which would be homeported in the US and would also travel between US
ports (perhaps carrying "merchandise"), would knock him or any
foreigner out on several counts. Note that the policy does not
prohibit foreign built and owned ships transporting merchandise from
overseas to the US or vice versa, it only prohibits them from
transporting merchandise "between" US ports.
Almost all countries do that. I don't know about Australia but I guess
they wouldn't allow American Airlines to ferry cargo or passengers
between Sydney and Adelaide either. Typically they could land there and
even continue but not take on additional payload originating inside the
country if that payload has an inbound destination.
Possibly the reason it doesn't apply to aircraft was that these
machines were not all that common back in the early 1900's and were
probably never ever perceived as being possible of carrying
merchandise. Cars were probably classified in a similar category.
Since all world trade was carried by ship at that time, the US
maritime planners were well aware of the money to be made in the
shipping game and were not about to allow foreign shipping owners into
their domain, so they dreamed up a protectionist policy to set in
concrete future profits solely for US owners. Unfortunately, the
policy still exists and appears to eliminate any competition for the
importation of any vessels manufactured outside the US.
QUOTE
2.27
The U.S. has a clearly stated and well-established protectionist
policy for their shipping industry. The Merchant Marine Act, 1920
stipulates that no merchandise shall be transported by water between
points in the United States either directly or via a foreign port in
any other vessel than a vessel built in and documented under the laws
of the United States and owned by persons who are citizens of the
United States.
UNQUOTE
My guess is that something must have miffed the authorities. I can't
imagine them enforcing that to the last letter. In fact, I knew a family
in Seattle who had a rather large sailboat moored there that was built
in Canada. No problems. You just have to make sure that you pay the use
tax properly (usually equal to the sales tax), just like everyone else
has to. There are folks who try to dodge that tax via some tricks and
that can raise the ire of the laws. But I have no idea what happened in
this case and why.
Also, they did have other means of transportation back then. For
example, numerous steam locomotives where imported into the US from the
UK and from Germany. They remained in service for a long time, hauling
all kinds of merchandise and people around.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com