HQ 112636: Protest No. 2704-93-100072; Vessel Repair Entry No. C27- 0061073-9; SEA-LAND INNOVATOR; Casualty; Crosshead Bearings; 19 U.S.C. 1466(d)(1).

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 112636

                             May 3, 1993


VES-13-18-CO:R:IT:C  112636 DEC

CATEGORY:  Carriers

Deputy Regional Director
Commercial Operations
Pacific Region
One World Trade Center
Long Beach, California  90831

RE:  Protest No. 2704-93-100072; Vessel Repair Entry No. C27-
     0061073-9; SEA-LAND INNOVATOR; Casualty; Crosshead Bearings;   
     19 U.S.C.   1466(d)(1).

Dear Sir:

     This is in response to your memorandum dated March 16, 1993,
transmitting the above referenced protest and supporting
documentation for our review.  Our ruling on this matter is set out
below.

FACTS:

     The SEA-LAND INNOVATOR arrived at Los Angeles, California, on
December 17, 1991.  An application seeking relief from vessel repair
duties was filed on March 19, 1992.  The vessel operator received an
extension to file making this filing timely.  Relief was denied for
insufficient evidentiary support to sustain a finding of a casualty.

     This protest stems from the vessel operator's repeated claim
that the vessel suffered a casualty.  The event at issue occurred on
November 24, 1991, when the vessel was bound for Hakata, Japan.  The
vessel's Graviner 4 Mist Detector Alarm sounded which indicated that
the vapors in the crankcase were approaching their lower explosive
limit.  The vessel, at reduced speed, was diverted to Kobe, Japan,
to address the complications discovered in the crankcase which the
alarm indicated.

     The protestant provided an informative narrative providing
Customs with valuable technical insight into understanding the
circumstances relating to the crankcase complications.  The
protestant noted that a Posa Marine Services report concluded that
the most likely cause of the damage was the loss of crosshead lube
oil pressure.  A second possible cause noted was normal wear and
tear.  The protestant, however, maintains that this was not the
cause because an investigation into their other vessels revealed
that there has not been one other similar failure.

                                 -2-


LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     Title 19, United States Code, section 1466 provides, in
paragraph (1), subsection (d), that duty may be remitted if good and
sufficient evidence is furnished establishing that the vessel was
compelled by stress of weather or other casualty to be put into a
foreign port to make repairs to secure the safety and seaworthiness
of the vessel to enable her to reach her port of destination.  It is
Customs position that "port of destination" means a port in the
United States.

     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. 23, 29,
C.D. 362 (1940).  Consequently, a casualty arises from a similar
identifiable event.  

     In Dollar Steamship Lines, the issue before the Customs Court
was whether blankets purchased based on the vessel doctor's
recommendation constituted dutiable equipment or a casualty as
defined under section 446 of the Tariff Act 1930 (current version at
19 U.S.C.   1466 (1992)).  The blankets were purchased to avert the
spread of influenza and meningitis from the passengers to the
vessel's crew, potentially incapacitating them so that they would be
incapable of performing their duties.  The court held that "the
statute [vessel repair statute] provides exemption from duty only in
the event of a casualty, and a calamitous event which had been
averted through the forethought of the ship's officers is not a
casualty."  Id.

     Customs finds that the circumstances surrounding the SEA-LAND
INNOVATOR's complications submitted for our review to be analogous. 
Regardless of the actual cause of the damage done to the vessel's
crankcase, the fact remains that no casualty as interpreted in the
statute occurred.  To the contrary, a calamitous event (i.e. an
explosion) was averted. 

HOLDING:

     After thorough review of the evidence presented, and as
detailed in the Law and Analysis portion of this ruling, this
protest seeking remission of vessel repair duties is hereby denied.

                                     Sincerely,




                                     Stuart P. Seidel
                                     Director, International Trade 
                                     Compliance Division