HQ 110910: Baltimore Vessel Repair Entry No. C13-0011878-8, dated October 23, 1989; M/V AMERICAN CONDOR, Voyage No. 061. Application; casualty; submerged object, 19 U.S.C. 1466(d); 19 CFR 4.14(c)

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 110910

                         August 8, 1990


VES-13-18-CO:R:P:C  110910 BEW

CATEGORY:  Carriers

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

Re:  Baltimore Vessel Repair Entry No. C13-0011878-8, dated
     October 23, 1989; M/V AMERICAN CONDOR, Voyage No. 061.
     Application; casualty; submerged object, 19 U.S.C.
     1466(d); 19 CFR 4.14(c)

Dear Sir:

     This is in reference to a memorandum dated March 2, 1990,
from your office which transmitted an application for relief from
duties filed by American Transport Lines, relating to vessel
repair entry No. C13-0011878-8 filed on October 23, 1989, for
foreign repairs performed on the AMERICAN CONDOR, voyage 061.

FACTS:

     The record shows that the shipyard work in question was
performed on the subject vessel in Antwerp, Belgium, during the
month of October 1989.  The subject vessel arrived in the United
States at the port of Baltimore, Maryland, on October 20, 1989.

     The entire vessel repair entry involves a potential duty of
$4,381.

     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(d) of the Customs Regulations.

     You have requested our advice concerning repairs to the
port and starboard propellers alleged to have been caused by a
casualty.  The applicant claims that the repairs and equipment
purchases described in the documents were necessitated by a
casualty, i.e., damage to the port and starboard propellers due
to the striking of an unknown submerged object.  It claims that
the vessel was compelled, because of damage, to make repairs and
to purchase such equipment to secure the safety and seaworthiness
of the vessel to enable it to reach its port of destination.

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(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 documented
under the laws of the United States to engage in the foreign or
coastwise trade, or vessels intended to be employed in such
trade.

     Paragraph (1), subsection (d) of section 1466 provides that
duty may also be remitted if good and sufficient evidence is
furnished establishing that the vessel was compelled by stress of
weather or other casualty to 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 statute thus sets a three-part test which must be met in
order to qualify for remission under the subsection, these being:

     1.   The establishment of a casualty occurrence.

     2.   The establishment of unsafe and unseaworthy conditions.

     3.   The inability to reach the port of destination without
          obtaining foreign repairs.

     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 (ruling letter
106159, September 8, 1983).

     The applicant describes the repairs as follows:

          Emergency inspection of and temporary repairs by divers
          to port and starboard propeller blades damaged by
          striking unknown submerged object.

     The file contains copies of the contemporaneously prepared
Master's report concerning the damage and repair work, and the
American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) report No. AN17045 concerning
the survey of the damage and the repairs performed on the port
and starboard propeller.  The evidence submitted establishes that
the damage to the subject vessel was clearly the result of a
casualty within the meaning of section 1466.  Accordingly, the
cost incurred for the subject repairs is non-dutiable.

HOLDING:

     The evidence presented is sufficient to prove that the
foreign repairs performed on the subject vessel were necessitated
by a casualty occurrence, thus warranting remission pursuant to
19 U.S.C. 1466.

                                     Sincerely,




                                     B. James Fritz
                                     Chief
                                     Carrier Rulings Branch