HQ 112565: Vessel Repair; Application for Relief; One-Round Voyage; Vessel: M/V GREEN BAY V-40/41 Vessel Repair Entry No. C27-0082303-5 Date of Arrival: October 8, 1992 Port of Arrival: Long Beach, California

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 112565


                        February 16, 1993


VES-13-18-CO:R:IT:C  112565 DEC

CATEGORY: Carriers


Deputy Regional Director
Commercial Operations
Pacific Region
One World Trade Center
Long Beach, California  90731

RE:  Vessel Repair; Application for Relief; One-Round Voyage;
     Vessel:   M/V GREEN BAY V-40/41
     Vessel Repair Entry No. C27-0082303-5
     Date of Arrival:    October 8, 1992
     Port of Arrival:    Long Beach, California

Dear Sir:

     This is in response to your memorandum dated December 29,
1992, which forwards for our consideration an application for
relief filed in connection with the above-referenced vessel.  Our
findings are set forth below.

FACTS:

     The M/V GREEN BAY is owned by Central Gulf Lines, Inc. and
is an American flag vessel.  While abroad, the vessel was
repaired in a foreign shipyard.  More particularly, the M/V Green
BAY had its 3 cm radar repaired and a wheelhouse window replaced
while it was docked at Yokohama, Japan from July 7, 1992 through
July 9, 1992.   In addition, while docked at Yokohama & Yokkaichi
from September 22, 1992 through September 25, 1992, the M/V GREEN
BAY had its S-Band radar repaired.

     An application for relief dated December 3, 1992, was timely
filed seeking relief from vessel repair duties assessed on the
above-referenced foreign repairs.

     In its application for relief, the vessel's owners state
that the repairs were made during prior voyages and have raised
the Customs six month rule as a defense to the assessment of
duty.

                               -2-


ISSUE:

     Whether the "one-round voyage" rule with respect to 19
U.S.C. 1466 renders the foreign vessel repairs at Yokohama
nondutiable as a casualty.


LAW AND ANALYSIS:

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

     Furthermore, Title 19, United States Code, Section
1466(d)(1) provides that the Secretary of Treasury is authorized
to remit, or refund duties if the owner or master of the vessel
provides good and sufficient evidence that the vessel was
compelled by stress of weather or other casualty to put into such
foreign port to make repairs to secure the safety and
seaworthiness of the vessel to enable her to reach her port of
destination.

     If satisfactory evidence is furnished clearly showing any
part of a vessel to have been repaired and/or serviced just prior
to the commencement of a voyage from a United States port, we
have held that it is reasonable to assume that the part is
seaworthy for a round voyage, foreign and return.  However, if
the evidence indicates some other reason necessitated the repairs
during the voyage, failure of that part to function within six
months after the repair and/or servicing in the United States may
be considered a casualty within the meaning of section
1466(d)(2).  Furthermore, remission of duty under the statute in
these circumstances is limited to duty on the essential, minimum
foreign repairs to the part.  T.D. 71-83 (38).

     The term, "casualty," as it is used in the statute, has been
interpreted as something which, 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. 28-29, C.D. 362 (1940).  In this sense, a "casualty"
arises from an identifiable event of some sort.  In the absence
of evidence of such a casualty event, we must consider the repair
to have been necessitated by normal wear and tear. C.I.E.
1829/58; Customs Ruling Letter 106159 LLB (September 8, 1983).





                               -3-


     The application for relief states that on voyages 37 and 38
of the subject vessel foreign repairs to its two radar systems
were made.  The repairs from voyage 37 to the 3 cm radar were
completed during February 11, 1992 through February 19, 1992, in
Nagoya, Japan and are documented on entry number C30-0010182-5.  

     No authenticated supporting documents were submitted with
respect to the alleged repairs from voyage 38.  Additionally, the
one-round-voyage rule which the applicant relies upon as a basis
for relief only applies to repairs made in the United States. 
Finally, the applicant submitted a log from voyage 39 which is
irrelevant to this inquiry.

     The July 1, 1992, log indicates that the 3 cm radar was lost
due to a casualty.  Further, the master's statement corroborates
this allegation.  Consequently, remission is granted with respect
to duty on the foreign repair of the 3 cm radar.  No supporting
or relevant documentation was submitted justifying remission of
duty on the wheelhouse window replacement nor the S-Band radar
repair.  Consequently, duty is owed absent additional evidence
and proof of a bona fide basis for remission.   


HOLDING:

     After thorough review of the evidence presented, and as
detailed in the Law and Analysis portion of this ruling, the
application for relief is granted with respect to the repairs to
the 3 cm radar, and denied with respect to the S-Band radar and
wheelhouse window. 

                                        Sincerely,




                                        Acting Chief