46 U.S.C. § 55102

Transportation of merchandise

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 46 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Definition.—In this section, the term “merchandise” includes—(1) merchandise owned by the United States Government, a State, or a subdivision of a State; and(2) valueless material.(b)Requirements.—Except as otherwise provided in this chapter or chapter 121 of this title, a vessel may not provide any part of the transportation of merchandise by water, or by land and water, between points in the United States to which the coastwise laws apply, either directly or via a foreign port, unless the vessel—(1) is wholly owned by citizens of the United States for purposes of engaging in the coastwise trade; and(2) has been issued a certificate of documentation with a coastwise endorsement under chapter 121 or is exempt from documentation but would otherwise be eligible for such a certificate and endorsement.(c)Penalty.—Merchandise transported in violation of subsection (b) is liable to seizure by and forfeiture to the Government. Alternatively, an amount equal to the value of the merchandise (as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security) or the actual cost of the transportation, whichever is greater, may be recovered from any person transporting the merchandise or causing the merchandise to be transported.(Pub. L. 109–304, § 8(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1632.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Revised

Section

Source (U.S. Code)

Source (Statutes at Large)

55102

46 App.:883 (words before 1st proviso, 11th proviso).

June 5, 1920, ch. 250, § 27 (words before 1st proviso, 11th proviso), 41 Stat. 999; July 2, 1935, ch. 355, 49 Stat. 442; Pub. L. 95–410, title II, § 213, Oct. 3, 1978, 92 Stat. 904; Pub. L. 101–329 [100–329], § 1(a)(1), [§ 1(a)] June 7, 1988, 102 Stat. 588; Pub. L. 102–587, title V, § 5501(b), Nov. 4, 1992, 106 Stat. 5085.

In subsection (a)(1), the words “(as defined in section 2101 of the [sic] title 46)” are omitted because the definition of “State” is being moved to chapter 1 and will apply to the entire title.

In subsection (b), the words “may not provide any part of the transportation of” are substituted for “No . . . shall be transported” and “or for any part of the transportation” because of the reorganization of the language. The words “including Districts, Territories, and possessions thereof” are omitted because of the definition of “United States” in chapter 1 of the revised title. The words “to which the coastwise laws apply” are substituted for “embraced within the coastwise laws” for consistency with section 55101. The words “is wholly owned by citizens of the United States for purposes of engaging in the coastwise trade” are substituted for “owned by persons who are citizens of the United States”, and the words “has been issued a certificate of documentation with a coastwise endorsement under chapter 121” are substituted for “documented under the laws of the United States”, for clarity and consistency in the revised title. The words “or is exempt from documentation but would otherwise be eligible for such a certificate and endorsement” are added for consistency with section 12102 as revised by the bill. The requirement that the vessel be built in the United States is omitted from this section for consistency with the requirements for a coastwise endorsement, which also require that the vessel be built in the United States except in certain circumstances. The words “or vessels to which the privilege of engaging in the coastwise trade is extended by section 808 of this Appendix or section 22 of this Act” are omitted because the relevant portion of section 808, and section 22, have been repealed.

In subsection (c), the words “any person” are substituted for “any consignor, seller, owner, importer, consignee, agent, or other person or persons” to eliminate unnecessary words.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 2007–2026 · leading case: Shipbuilders Council of Am. v. United States Coast Guard, 578 F.3d 234 (4th Cir. 2009).
Shipbuilders Council of Am. v. United States Coast Guard, 578 F.3d 234 (4th Cir. 2009). “46 U.S.C. § 55102 (formerly at 46 U.S.C. app.”
EQT Infrastructure Ltd. v. Smith, 861 F. Supp. 2d 220 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). “” 46 U.S.C. § 55102 . . "Milazzo Decl.” refers to the Declaration of Christopher P.”
OSG Prod. Tankers LLC v. United States, 82 Fed. Cl. 570 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “The record does not contain plaintiffs performance or financial history.”
Shipbuilders Council v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 770 F. Supp. 2d 793 (E.D. Va. 2011). “” 46 U.S.C. § 55102 (b). The Second Proviso to the Jones Act permanently disqualifies from coastwise service any otherwise eligible vessel that is “later rebuilt outside the United States.”
United States v. Lebrón-Caceres, 157 F. Supp. 3d 80 (D.P.R. 2016). “988, 999 (codified as amended at 46 U.S.C. § 55102 ). However, registry endorsements excluding "U.”
Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Zaragoza-Gomez, 174 F. Supp. 3d 585 (D.P.R. 2016). “14, 2016) (citing 46 U.S.C. § 55102 ). As a matter of basic economics, the Jones Act’s limitation on'the supply of vessels available to serve and compete in the Puerto Rico shipping market necessarily “causes prices in that market to be higher than they otherwise would be.”
Shipbuilders Council of Am., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 481 F. Supp. 2d 550 (E.D. Va. 2007). “See 46 U.S.C. § 55102 . Important here is the Jones Act’s Second Proviso, which provides that vessels “rebuilt” outside the United States are permanently disqualified from engaging in coastwise trade.”
Shipbuilders Council of Am. v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 551 F. Supp. 2d 447 (E.D. Va. 2008). “” 3 46 U.S.C. § 55102 (b). This litigation concerns the Second Proviso to the Jones Act, which permanently disqualifies an otherwise eligible vessel that is “later rebuilt outside the United States” from engaging in coastwise trade.”
Matson Navigation Co., Inc. v. DOT, 77 F.4th 1151 (D.C. Cir. 2023). “46 U.S.C. § 55102 (b). And the vessel must be “wholly owned by citizens of the United States,” id.”
Diamond Servs. v. Curtin Mar., 99 F.4th 722 (5th Cir. 2024). “” The story did not end there, though. Later regulations permitted some foreign parts because it was thought undesirable to disqualify a vessel merely for a foreign-sourced “minor alteration.”
Great Lakes Dredge v. Magnus, 128 F.4th 678 (5th Cir. 2025). “See 46 U.S.C. § 55102 (b). 2 By contrast, carrying such rock from a foreign point (such as Canada) to the OCS was not subject to the Jones Act and so could be undertaken by foreign-flag vessels.”
Kloosterboer Int'l Forwarding LLC v. United States of Am. (D. Alaska 2021). · cites it 3× “38 See 46 U.S.C. § 55102 (b) (formerly 46 U.S.C.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.