HQ 110518: Protest No. 27048-002893; Vessel Repair Entry No. C27- 0021080-3 dated November 16, 1986; Date of Arrival: November 16, 1986; Port of Arrival: Long Beach, California; Vessel Name: M/V SEALAND INNOVATOR; Voyage No. 67

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 110518

                          June 18, 1990

VES-13-18 CO:R:P:C 110518 BEW

CATEGORY:  Carriers

Chief, Technical Branch
Pacific Region
One World Trade Center
Long Beach, California  90831

RE:  Protest No. 27048-002893; Vessel Repair Entry No. C27-
     0021080-3 dated November 16, 1986; Date of Arrival: November
     16, 1986; Port of Arrival:  Long Beach, California; Vessel
     Name:  M/V SEALAND INNOVATOR;  Voyage No. 67

Dear Sir:

     Reference is made to the above-captioned protest seeking
reliquidation on the basis of foreign shipyard work having been
performed pursuant to a warranty recognizable under the decision
of the Court of International Trade in the case of Sea-Land
Service, Inc. v. United States, 683 F. Supp. 1404 (1988).  The
notice of liquidation is dated March 25, 1988.  The protest dated
July 12, 1988, was filed July 15, 1988.

FACTS:

     The vessel was taken abroad for the purpose of having a mid-
body addition inserted in order to lengthen the vessel by some
one-hundred (100) feet.  This was accomplished and the vessel was
redelivered to Sea-Land by the shipyard on June 3, 1985.  The
work was performed under a construction contract which was
identical for twelve (12) Sea-Land vessels which were modified at
nearly the same time.  The standard contract contained a warranty
clause (Article XI WARRANTY OF QUALITY), containing two time
elements, which read as follows:

     (b)  Guarantee Period.  The guarantee of the contractor
     shall expire:

          (i)  for defects in design, material or workmanship
          which the owner might discover by the exercise of due
          diligence:  twelve (12) months from the date of
          redelivery of the CONVERTED VESSEL.

          (ii)  for defect in material or workmanship which could
          not be discovered by the exercise of the owner`s due
          diligence (i. e. , latent defects):  twenty-four (24)
          months from the date of redelivery of the CONVERTED
          VESSEL.
     The warranty provisions are conditioned upon timely written
notice being given by the owner to the shipyard within 20 days
following the expiration of the warranty period.

ISSUE:

     Whether the court-established elements for filing a timely
protest are present in this case, as detailed in the case of
Penrod Drilling Co., v. United States, 727 F.Supp. 1463 (CIT
1989).

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     In the case of Penrod Drilling Co., v. United States, 727
F.Supp. 1463 (CIT 1989), the Court addressed the issue of whether
a protest of duties was timely filed.  The Court held that the
importer was on notice of liquidation of entries, for purpose of
deciding whether protest was timely filed, on the date that the
notice of liquidation was posted in the customhouse, and not on
the date of its receipt of notice in Customs Service Bill (19
U.S.C. 1514(c)(2)(A).  The court stated that the importer bears
the burden of examining all notices posted in the customhouse to
determine whether its goods have been liquidated, and to protest
timely.  It stated the importer had an obligation to file timely
protest of duties and that its obligation under the statute did
not end upon delivery of the requisite documents to a mail
carrier service within sufficient time to reach Customs.  The
Court further stated that Bulletin notice is a statutorily
mandated notice, and absent evidence to the contrary there is a
presumption of regularity which attaches to government acts.  "It
is presumed that public officials perform their duties in a
manner consistent with law...."  Commonwealth Oil Refining Co. v.
United States, 60 CCPA 162, 167, C.A.D. 1105, 480 F.2d 1352,
1357 (1973).

     Following liquidation, a protest may be filed against the
decision to treat an item or a repair as dutiable under 19 U.S.C.
1466(a) (19 C.F.R. 4.14).  Under the provisions of title 19
United States Code, section 1514, such protest of duties shall be
filed within 90 days from the notice of liquidation.

     In the subject case, the entry was liquidated on March 25,
1988.  Customs received the protest on July 15, 1988, the one-
hundredth tenth day (110th) day after the notice of liquidation.
The statute plainly requires filing within ninety days.
Therefore, the protest is untimely and the relief requested is
denied.

HOLDING:

     The date of liquidation generally is the bulletin notice of
liquidation, and a timely protest of duties must be filed with
the Customs service within 90 days of this date.  Accordingly,
the protest is untimely filed.

                                     Sincerely,




                                     Stuart P. Seidell
                                     Director
                                     Regulatory Procedures and
                                     Penalties Division