HQ 110719: Vessel Repair Entry No. C13-00106874, dated June 19, 1989; Date of Arrival: May 30, 1989; Port of Arrival: Baltimore, Maryland; Vessel: M/V AMERICAN FALCON, Voyage No. 52

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 110719

                          July 13, 1990

VES-13-18-CO:R:P:C 110719 BEW

CATEGORY:  Carriers

Deputy Assistant Regional Commissioner
Commercial Operations
ATTN:  Regional Vessel Repair Liquidation Unit
New York, New York 10048-0945

Re:  Vessel Repair Entry No. C13-00106874, dated June 19, 1989;
     Date of Arrival:  May 30, 1989; Port of Arrival:  Baltimore,
     Maryland; Vessel:  M/V AMERICAN FALCON, Voyage No. 52

Dear Sir:

     This is in reference to an application for relief from
duties filed by American Transport Lines, in relation to the
above referenced vessel repair entry dated June 19, 1989,
transmitted to this office by memorandum dated December 18, 1989.
We have reviewed the entire record, and render the following
advice.

FACTS:

     The record shows that the shipyard work in question was
performed on the subject vessel in Felixstowe, United Kingdom,
Rotterdam, Holland, and Bremerhaven, West Germany, during the
month of May 1989.

     The subject vessel arrived in the United States at the port
of Baltimore, Maryland, on May 30, 1989.

     The applicant claims that relief for the subject items
should be granted because the items should be classified as
nondutiable items covered under title 19, United States Code,
section 1466 and sections 4.14(a) and 4.14(c) of the Customs
Regulations.

     The entire vessel repair entry involves a potential duty of
$1,572.70.

     You have requested our advice concerning the following
items.  We will refer to the work using the item numbers and
invoice descriptions shown on the attachments and invoices
submitted with your memorandum.

ISSUE:

     Whether the foreign work performed on the subject vessel is
dutiable under 19 U.S.C. 1466.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

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

     Section 1466 (d)(1) provides that the Secretary of the
Treasury is authorized to remit or refund such duties if the
owner or master of the vessel submits 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.

     The term "casualty", as it is used in the vessel repair
statute (19 U.S.C. 1466), has been interpreted by the Customs
Court as something which, like stress of weather, comes from
unexpected force or violence, such as from a fire, explosion, or
collision (see Dollar Steamship Lines, v. United States, 5 Cust.
Ct. 28-29.  C.D. 362 (1940)).

     A clear requirement of the statute is that the vessel be
compelled by such a casualty to seek foreign shipyard service to
secure the safety and seaworthiness of the vessel and to enable
her to safely reach her port of destination.

     We have reviewed all of the elements for which relief is
sought and, render the following advice on the (3) subject
invoices:

     The file contains copies of the contemporaneously prepared
Master's report and the vessel's log concerning the damage and
repair to the vessel's radar system.  These documents amount to
reports on the presence of damage, but provide no evidence as to
how the damage occurred.  Absent clear proof of an identifiable
event resulting in damage, such damage is assumed to have
resulted from ordinary wear and tear.  The documentation

submitted is insufficient to support a finding of a casualty as
provided in section 1466(d)(1).  Accordingly, the cost incurred
for repairs under item No. 1. - Felixstowe Marine Electronics No.
22507 is dutiable.

     Pursuant to C.D. 1830, expenses incurred for shipping,
crating and packing are not expenses of repair, and as such are
not subject to duty under section 1466.  Accordingly, the lashing
gear listed on the item No. 3 - Sealash BV invoice is
nondutiable.

     With regard to item No. 4 - Mobiltec invoice No. 160, items
are dutiable, except those costs for freight, courier, packing
and customs clearance.

HOLDING:

     The foreign repair work for which the applicant seeks relief
is dutiable under 19 U.S.C. 1466 with exception of those items
noted above.

                                Sincerely,




                                B. James Fritz
                                Chief
                                Carrier Rulings Branch