HQ 110804: Seattle Vessel Repair Entry No. 335-0902839-6, PRESIDENT MADISON V-159

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 110804

                          July 9, 1990


VES-13-18-CO:R:P:C 110804 GV

CATEGORY:  Carriers

Chief, Technical Branch
Pacific Region
300 North Los Angeles Street
Post Office Box 2071
Los Angeles, California 90053-3379

RE:  Seattle Vessel Repair Entry No. 335-0902839-6,
     PRESIDENT MADISON  V-159

Dear Sir:

     Your memorandum dated January 17, 1990, forwarded an
application for relief from duty assessed pursuant to 19 U.S.C.
1466 on the cost of foreign work performed on the subject vessel.
You seek our advice regarding five items covered by the above
referenced entry.  Our findings are set forth below.

FACTS:

     The PRESIDENT MADISON is a U.S.-flag vessel owned by
American President Lines, Ltd. (APL) of Oakland, California.
During the vessel's departure from Kobe, Japan, on September 9,
1989, en route to Kaohsiung, Taiwan, the main propulsion shaft
thrust bearing failed.  The failure was evidenced by the
bearing's high temperature and lube oil strainer differential
pressure alarms sounding one after another after the main steam
turbine speed increased to 85 r.p.m.  Particles of the melted
bearing metal circulated through the lubricating oil system,
plugging the strainers.  Upon examination of the strainers, a
considerable amount of non-ferrous material was found in the
first strainer.  Several attempts were made to increase main
turbine speed all of which failed.  Upon consulting via satellite
with APL shore personnel, it was decided the vessel could not
proceed in this condition without incurring extensive damage to
the reduction bull gear and reduction pinion gears and therefore
should return to Kobe for repairs.

     The subject vessel arrived in Kobe on September 11, 1989,
and the repairs in question took place during the period of
September 11-21, 1989.  Subsequent to the completion of the
repairs the vessel arrived in Seattle, Washington, on September
29, 1989.  A vessel repair entry was filed on October 6, 1989.
                              - 2 -

     An application dated December 13, 1989, was submitted
claiming that the above repairs were necessitated as a result of
a casualty and therefore the duties assessed thereon should be
remitted pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1466(d)(1).  The applicant
contends that the bearing failure was due to the presence of tin
oxide particles (which are hard, sharp, and abrasive) on the
bearing metal.  Test results from lube oil samples from the
contaminated oil revealed the presence of sulphur reducing
bacteria which attack the bearing metal and cause the formation
of tin oxide.  In support of its claim the applicant submitted
the following: (1) a copy of a memo of the Port Engineer, Mr.
George R. Burton; (2) a copy of an APL damage report; (3) a copy
of a U.S. Coast Guard Report of Marine Accident; (4) a copy of
Captain John G. Stewart's message to APL headquarters; (5) copies
of shipyard invoices covering the repairs in question; (6) copies
of an American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) invoice and report; and
(7) a copy of a certificate of analysis from the laboratory which
tested the lube oil samples.

ISSUE:

     Whether evidence is presented sufficient to prove that the
foreign repairs performed on the subject vessel for which relief
is sought were necessitated by a casualty occurrence, thus
warranting remission pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1466(d)(1).

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.
Section 1466(d)(1) provides for 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" necessary 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 with
unexpected force or violence, such as a fire, explosion, or
collision (see Dollar Steamship Lines, Inc., v. United States, 5
Cust. Ct. 28-29, C.D. 362 (1940)).

     In regard to the applicant's claim, we note that in view of
the Customs Court's interpretation noted above, damage attributed
to defective lubricants cannot be considered a casualty for
purposes of section 1466(d)(1).  Accordingly, the repairs in
question are dutiable.
                              - 3 -

HOLDING:

     The evidence presented is insufficient to prove that the
foreign repairs performed on the subject vessel for which relief
is sought were necessitated by a casualty occurrence.
Accordingly, remission pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1466(d)(1) is
denied.

                                   Sincerely,




                                   B. James Fritz
                                   Chief
                                   Carrier Rulings Branch