HQ 111297: Vessel Repair; Casualty; Collision; Negligence; SGT. WILLIAM R. BUTTON V-26; Entry No. H19-0100335-0; 19 U.S.C. 1466.

Native CBP ruling rendition. Applicability is fact-specific; modification/revocation relationships and original publisher date are retained. Publisher sentinel year0001 means unknown date, not a historical legal adoption.

                            HQ 111297

                        February 19, 1991

VES-13-04/18/19   CO:R:IT:C  111297  JBW

CATEGORY:   Carriers

Chief, Technical Branch
Commercial Operations
Pacific Region
1 World Trade Center
Long Beach, CA 90831

RE:  Vessel Repair; Casualty; Collision; Negligence; SGT. WILLIAM
     R. BUTTON V-26; Entry No. H19-0100335-0; 19 U.S.C. 1466.

Dear Sir:

     This letter is in response to your memorandum of September
4, 1990, which forwards for our review and ruling the above
referenced application for relief from the assessment of vessel
repair duties.

FACTS:

     The record reflects that the subject vessel, the SGT.
WILLIAM R. BUTTON, is a United States flag vessel under long term
charter to the Military Sealift Command.  The vessel arrived at
the port of Honolulu on June 24, 1990, and vessel repair entry,
number H19-0100335-0, was filed the same day as arrival.  The
entry shows that the vessel underwent foreign shipyard work in
Pohang, Korea, in March, 1989.  This work was necessitated in
part because of a collision the vessel experienced on Saturday
March 18, 1989.  The applicant also claims that other repairs
were made to meet safety regulations promulgated by the United
States Coast Guard.

ISSUES:

     (1)  Whether the applicant has submitted sufficient evidence
to demonstrate that work performed on the vessel, which was
required to repair damage that resulted from a collision, is a
casualty under 19 U.S.C. 1466.

     (2)  Whether repairs performed to meet requirements of the
United States Coast Guard are dutiable under 19 U.S.C. 1466.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     Title 19, United States Code, section 1466, provides in
pertinent part for payment of duty in the amount of 50 percent ad
valorem on the cost of foreign repairs to vessels documented
under the laws of the United States to engage in foreign or
coastwise trade, or vessels intended to engage in such trade.

     The statute provides for the remission of the above duties
in those instances where good and sufficient evidence is
furnished to show that foreign repairs were compelled by "stress
of weather or other casualty" and were necessary to secure the
safety and seaworthiness of the vessel to enable her to reach her
port of destination.  19 U.S.C. 1466(d)(1).  The term casualty,
as it is used in the statute, has been interpreted as something
that, like stress of weather, comes with unexpected force or
violence, such as fire, explosion, or collision.  Dollar
Steamship Lines, Inc. v. United States, 5 Cust. Ct. 23, 28-29,
C.D. 362 (1940).  In the absence of evidence of such a casualty
causing event, we must consider the repair to have been
necessitated by normal wear and tear.  C.S.D. 89-95, 23 Cust. B.
& Dec., No. 43, 4, 5 (1989).

     The applicant claims that repairs made to the starboard side
shell resulted from a collision experienced by the vessel while
in Pohang, Korea.  To demonstrate casualty, the applicant
submits copies of invoices, the vessel log, the report of the
American Bureau of Shipping, and certification by the master of
the vessel relating to the nature of the damage and to the
necessity of repairs to secure the safety and seaworthiness of
the vessel to enable her to reach her United States port of
destination.  We find this evidence sufficient to demonstrate
casualty.  The costs on the Pohang Marine Engineering Co., Ltd.,
invoice relating to repair of the starboard side shell are
remissible under 19 U.S.C. 1466(d)(1).

     The applicant further claims that repairs made to the port
anchor windlass and to the handrails, cradle, and guards were
required to comply with regulations promulgated by the United
States Coast Guard for the safety of ocean vessels.   The port
anchor windlass required the replacement of oil seals.  The hand
rails and guards were apparently damaged by military personnel
working cargo.  The applicant also states that the ship's LCM-8
cradle was repaired, but no cause of damage appears in the
record.

     We have held that the purchase of an article for a vessel
because it is required by Coast Guard regulations does not
warrant remission of the duty on the cost of the purchase.
C.S.D. 82-95, 16 Cust. B. & Dec. 859, 860 (1982).  Further, we
have held that repairs necessitated by Coast Guard requirements
do not in and of themselves constitute a casualty so that
remission may be authorized.  Id.  The replacement of the oil
seals appears to be simply the replacement of a worn part.  We
thus find that the cost of the repair to the port anchor windlass
is dutiable under 19 U.S.C. 1466.  Absent evidence of the cause
of damage, we also find the cost of repairs to the LCM-8 cradle
to be dutiable.

     The Customs Service has held that damage caused by the
negligence of stevedores is a casualty provided that the damage
was not attributable to wear and tear or to the failure to
replace or maintain a worn part.  C.I.E. 1161/62, dated October
26, 1962.  From the statement of the master, the log, and a
telex, it appears that the damage caused to the railings and
guards is in the nature of negligent damage to the vessel.  We
therefore find the costs relating to repairs of the rails and
guards are remissible.  These costs, however, are not separately
itemized.  They are therefore dutiable.

HOLDINGS:

     (1)  The applicant has submitted sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that work performed on a vessel that was required to
repair damage that resulted from a collision is a casualty under
19 U.S.C. 1466.

     (2)  Repairs performed to meet requirements of the United
States Coast Guard are dutiable under 19 U.S.C. 1466.  The
repairs made to the port anchor windlass are dutiable, for they
were made to correct parts damaged by wear and tear.  Absent
evidence of the cause of the damage, we find the cost of repairs
to the LCM-8 cradle to be dutiable.  The damage to the railings
and guards was caused from negligent cargo handling and is
considered a casualty.  These latter costs are not separately
itemized and are therefore dutiable.


                              Sincerely,



                              B. James Fritz
                              Chief
                              Carrier Rulings Branch