HQ 110944: Vessel repair; modification; installation of deck drain Vessel: PRESIDENT TRUMAN V-18 Date of Arrival: January 20, 1990 Port of Arrival: San Pedro, California Vessel Repair Entry No. C27-0011766-9

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 110944

                          June 19, 1990

VES-13-18-CO:R:P:C  110944 KVS

CATEGORY:  Carriers

Chief, Technical Branch
Commercial Operations Division
1 World Trade Center
Long Beach, CA  90831

RE:  Vessel repair; modification; installation of deck drain
     Vessel:  PRESIDENT TRUMAN V-18
     Date of Arrival:  January 20, 1990
     Port of Arrival:  San Pedro, California
     Vessel Repair Entry No. C27-0011766-9

Dear Sir:

     This is in response to your memorandum dated March 20, 1990,
which forwards for our consideration an application for relief
from vessel repair duties filed in connection with the PRESIDENT
TRUMAN V-18, vessel repair entry no. C27-0011766-9.  Our findings
are set forth below.

FACTS:

     The PRESIDENT TRUMAN underwent various shipyard operations
in Hong Kong and Taiwan from January 4, 1990 until January 9,
1990.  The vessel arrived in the United States on January 20,
1990, at San Pedro, California, and made entry.

     The application for relief currently under consideration was
timely filed on February 26, 1990.  The applicant seeks relief
from vessel repair duties assessed in connection with the
installation of a drain on the upper forward deck on the basis
that the work is a non-dutiable modification.

ISSUE:

     Whether the installation of an upper forward deck drain is
an alteration to the hull and fittings of the vessel and
therefore free from duties assessed pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1466 as
a modification.




                              - 2 -


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.

     In its application of 19 U.S.C. 1466, Customs has held that
modifications/alterations/additions to the hull and fittings of a
vessel are not subject to vessel repair duties.  For an item to
be characterized as a non-dutiable modification, the Customs
Service has held that it must encompass the installation of an
item as a new design feature, not as a replacement for, or
restoration of, parts now performing a similar function.  (See
Customs Memorandum 108871 GV (dated April 16, 1987)).

     Customs has also held that the decision in each case as to
whether an installation constitutes a nondutiable addition to the
hull and fittings of the vessel depends to a great extent on the
detail and accuracy of the drawings and invoice descriptions of
the actual work performed.  (See Customs Memorandum 108871 GV
(dated April 16, 1987), citing C.S.D. 83-35).  Even if an article
is considered to be part of the hull and fittings of a vessel,
the repair of that article, or the replacement of a worn part of
the hull and fittings, is subject to vessel repair duties. (See
C.I.E. 233/60).

     In support of its position that the installation of a deck
drain is a non-dutiable modification, the applicant has submitted
a memorandum from their Vessel Engineering and Construction
Department which provides a detailed description of the work
specifications, as well as drawings which clearly indicate the
location of the work to be performed.  The applicant has also
submitted Hong Kong United Dockyards Ltd, invoice # H008/12--89,
dated December 20, 1989, which provides the costs incurred for
labor and materials.

     After reviewing the documentation submitted by the
applicant, we find that the installation of a drain on the
forward upper deck constituted a new design feature and was not
in the nature of a repair.  Accordingly, we find the cost
incurred in the installation of the deck drain to be non-
dutiable.





                              - 3 -


HOLDING:

     Following a thorough review of the evidence provided, and as
detailed in the "Law and Analysis" section of this ruling, we
recommend that the application for relief be granted.

                                     Sincerely,




                                     B. James Fritz
                                     Chief
                                     Carrier Rulings Branch