HQ 110955: Protest No. 1601-8-000050; Vessel Repairs; Non-compliance With Protest Requirements

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 110955

                       September 26, 1990


VES-13-18 CO:R:P:C 110955 BEW

CATEGORY:  Carriers

Deputy Assistant Regional Commissioner
Commercial Operations Division
ATTN:  Vessel Repair Liquidation Unit
New Orleans, Louisiana  70130

RE:  Protest No. 1601-8-000050; Vessel Repairs; Non-compliance
     With Protest Requirements

Dear Sir:

     This is in reference to a memorandum dated March 27, 1990,
from your office which transmitted protest No. 1601-8-000050,
relating to vessel repair entry No. C16-0005081-4, concerning the
M/V NEDLLOYD HUDSON, Voyage No. 01, which arrived at the port of
Charleston, South Carolina, on April 27 1988.  The entry was
filed on the same day.

FACTS:

     The M/V NEDLLOYD HUDSON is one of twelve econship class
vessels newly acquired by Sea-Land Service, Inc., that were in
long-term lay-up due to the bankruptcy of their former owners.
Upon its acquisition by Sea-Land the M/V NEDLLOYD HUDSON was
drydocked for extensive work performed foreign.  Subsequent to
the completion of the aforementioned foreign work, the subject
vessel first arrived in the United States at Charleston, South
Carolina, on April 27, 1988.

     A vessel repair entry covering the voyage in question was
timely filed on April 27, 1988.  A request for an extension of
time until July 26, 1988, to file an application and supporting
documentation was granted.  A second request for such an
extension was denied.  The application and supporting
documentation were not submitted within the allotted time.  The
entry was subsequently liquidated based on Sea-Land's own
estimate on the CF 226 but appropriately adjusted to protect the
revenue.  The invoices covering the work in question were finally
submitted on September 6, 1988.  A timely protest filed on
November 9, 1988, protesting the liquidation of the entry which

was liquidated on September 30, 1988, in the amount of
$1,000,000.  The protest was partially granted and on January 5,
1990, the entry was reliquidated in the amount of $228,102.25.  A
second protest was filed on January 31, 1990.

ISSUE:

     Whether the protest meets the statutory requirements of 19
U.S.C. 1514.

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.

     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.

     Under the provisions of title 19, United States Code,
section 1514(c)(1), a protest of a decision under subsection (a)
of this section shall be filed in writing with the appropriate
Customs officer designated in regulations prescribed by the
Secretary, setting forth distinctly and specifically each
decision described in subsection (a) of this section as to which
protest is made; each category of merchandise affected by each
such decision as to which protest is made; and the nature of each
objection and reasons therefor.  Only one protest may be filed
for each entry of merchandise, except where the entry covers
merchandise for different categories, a separate protest may be
filed for each category.

     Section 174.13(a)(5) of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR
174.13(a)(5)), provides that a protest shall contain a specific
description of the merchandise affected by the decision as to
which protest is made.  Section 174.13(a)(6) of the Customs
Regulations (19 CFR 174.13(a)(6)) provides that a protest shall
set forth the nature of, and justification for the objection set
forth distinctly and specifically with respect to each category,
payment, claim, decision, or refusal.

     In the subject case, the protest was granted in part and
denied in part, and the entry was reliquidated on January 5,
1990.  Section 1514(b)(1) limits an importer to filing one
protest to contest all administrative decisions arising our an
entry comprising one category of merchandise.  Inasmuch as the
first protest covered all categories of merchandise, the
protestant's second protest is improperly filed (see Webcor
Electronics v. United States, 1977, 442 F.Supp. 95, 79 Cust. Ct.
C.D. 4725).  Under Customs Regulations, a protest may be amended
prior to final determination, however, under the provisions of
section 174.31 of the Customs Regulations, any person whose
protest has been denied in whole or part, may contest the denial
by filing a civil action in the United Stated Court of
International Trade in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 2632 within 180
days after -

     (a)  The date of mailing of notice of denial, in whole or
          in part, of a protest, or

     (b)  The date a protest, for which accelerated disposition
          was requested, is deemed to have been denied in
          accordance with section 174.22(d).

     The statute plainly requires the filing of one protest on
each category of merchandise.  Inasmuch as the first protest
protested each catagory of merchandise, the protestant has
exhausted its administrative remedies.  Accordingly, subject
protest is denied on the basis that it has been improperly filed.

HOLDING:

     The subject protest is denied in that it does not meet the
requirements set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1514.

                                  Sincerely,



                                  Stuart P. Seidel
                                  Director, Regulatory Procedures
                                  and Penalties Division