MATTER OF M/V GLOVE 

In FINE Proceedings 

PAR-280.11 

Decided by Board April 2, 1959 

Fine—Section 275(d)—Notice to detain on board not required where alien 

stowaway escapes prior to inspection. 

Section 278(d) (1) of the 1952 act imposes an absolute duty, without the requirement of notice, upon the responsible parties to detain alien Stowaways 

on board the vessel until inspection by an Immigration officer. Statutory 

duty exists despite lack of knowledge of stowaways' presence aboard the 

vessel until their apprehension ashore. 

Ix RR • WV GLOVE, which arrirod at Port Arthur, Tonoo, from foreign on 

December 22, 1057. Alien stowaways involved : A M , F— 

G— and G D—. 

DEFORE THE BOARD 

Discussion: On July 18, 1958, this Board dismissed the appeal 

from the district director's decision of February 18, 1958, directing 

that a penalty of $3,000, $1,000 as to each of the above-named stowaways, be imposed on S C , master, and/or the Port Arthur 

Steamship Agency, agents of the vessel. The specific violation 

dredged toss the failure to detain the three stowaways aboard the 

vessel until they had been inspected by an immigration officer. The 

request for mitigation or remission of the penalty was denied. 

Having subsequently authorized and heard oral argument on the 

motion, same will now be decided on the merits and denied. 

The basic facts of this case are not in dispute. The three abovenamed aliens arrived in the United States aboard this vessel, supra, 

with the assistance of two members of the crew thereof. They succeeded in leaving the vessel undetected and without inspection by 

immigration officers. Two days after the vessel arrived, they were 

apprehended ashore at Mobile, Alabama, by Border Patrol officers 

of the Immigration Service. They were placed back aboard the vessel and they departed foreign with it. 

There is no basis whatsoever for the argument that the prior decisions its this matter, both of the district director and of this Board, 

were based upon the erroneous assumption that the party here 

299 
sought to be charged with responsibility had been served with a 

notice to detain on board and deport (Form 1-259) the stowaways. 

Boil) the district director and this board were aware of the absence 

of any such form, and the decisions were based upon the fact that 

the statute imposed on the parties named therein, including the ones 

here sought to be charged with liability, an absolute duty to detain 

these stowaways aboard the vessel at all times until they had been 

inspected by an immigration officer. As to this statutory duty, there 

is no requirement of notice. 

That is, subsection (d) of section 293 of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act sets up a specific procedure for dealing with alien 

stowaways and provides a fine of $1,000 for: 

(1) Failure to demur (hew oa beard until they have been inspected by an 

:Immigration officer; 

12) Pallure to detain them on board after inspection, if ordered to do so; or 

13) Failure to deport them on the vessel on whirls they arrived or on another vessel of the same line. 

(Matter of SS. Saint Tropez, 7 I. & N. Dee, 500 (B.I.A., 1957).) 

The absolute statutory duty to detain, without notice, arising under 

subsection (1), supra, applies in the present situation, and we have 

consistently held that the absolute duty exists despite lack of hno,v1.- 

edge of the stowaways' presence aboard until their apprehension 

ashore (2/latt4p elf ,S'S. Monte Mottfttich, 5 I. & N. Dec. 601). The 

prior decisions of this Board relied upon by the carrier (Matter of 

88. Maria Theresa, F-0414/19, May 22, 1956, unreported; and 

Matter of SS. Morning Light, 7 I. & N. Dec. 280), are not controlling 

hero for the reason that the stowaways had been inspected and 

ordered detained on board, so that the fine proceedings in those 

cases were based on subdivision (2) of section 273(d) and not, as 

here, subsection (1) thereof. In other words, this case is predicated 

on a subsection of the law placing on the parties here sought to be 

charged with liability an absolute duty to detain the stowaways 

aboard the vessel, without more. 

For the reasons set forth in the foregoing paragraph, there is no 

validity to the claim of failure on the part of the Service to conform 

to the requirements of S CFR 6.1(g) which, in substance, provide 

that prior precedent decisions of this Board shall be binding in 

matters such as this. Nor is there, on the record before us, any 

basis for the claim of failure on the part of the Service to comply 

with the terms of S ()FR. 292.4(h) requiring permission to review 

the record by the interested parties. It is established on the record, 

and conceded, that the responsible parties failed, at the outset, to 

take advantage of their right to an "interview" under S CFR 280.12, 

but that such privilege was subsequently granted, upon request.. 

'Under the circumstances, and upon careful consideration of the entire 

record, we find that the Service has herein complied with the provi300 
sions of 8 CFR 280 which control the imposition and collection of 

fines. 

Finally, we find no fatal defect, as alleged, in that notice of intention to line (0Orm I-'19) was served on the ,essePs master and the 

Port Arthur Shipping Corporation, as agents, whereas the penalty 

has been ordered imposed on the Port Arthur Steamship Agency. 

In the first place, and as a practical matter, it is established and 

conceded that the fine would still lie against the master since the 

notice of intention to fine was, in fact, addressed to and acknowledged by him. Secondly, and technically, as a result of the service 

of notice of intention to fine, a protest thereto submitted to the 

Service was signed by the manager of the Port Arthur Shipping 

Agency with no claim of improper service, so that it would appear 

that the parties here sought to be charged with responsibility were 

on proper notice and that it is now too late to raise the issue of erroneous service. Thirdly, and the determining factor here, is that the 

evidence of record establishes proper service. 

The notice of intention to fine (Form I-79) was receipted by an 

 L E, for the Port Arthur Shipping Corporation. The fact 

that the Port Arthur Steamship Agency then protested is a clear 

indication of the propriety of his acknowledgment. More important, 

however, is the fact that, as established by the documents submitted 

in support of this motion by counsel, a person who is shown therein 

as an owner, operator, and director of the legal entities in question 

has indicated that the service was proper. In a letter dated January 27, 1959, to the officer in charge of the Service station at Port 

Arthur, Texas, R---F— stated the following: 

(1) The Port Arthur Steamship Agency is an operating division of the 

Port Arthur Shipping Corporation. No separate offices are maintained and 

aelihel is a ps,stiic=sh. Port A ether Chipping Corporation. as the name implies, is a corporation, and the Port Arthur Steamship Agency is an operating 

division of the corporation, not a separate legal entity. 

(2) A bond or other undertaking of the Port Arthur Shipping Corporation 

Is Intended to bind the Port Arthur Steamship Agency. 

(3) An act of an employee of the Port Arthur Steamship Agency Is also an 

act of an employee of the Port Arthur Shipping Corporation. 

(4) Is an employee of the Port Arthur Shipping Agency 

and also an employee of the Port Arthur Shipping Corporation. 

Finally, the question of reduction of the amount of the penalty 

has been adequately dealt with in prior decisions. Suffice it to say 

that none is permitted Limier the statute, despite the master's cooperation (Matter of SS. Monte Mon:7111A, supra). 

Order: It is ordered that the motion be and the same is hereby 

denied. 

301