HQ 111350: Vessel Repair; Painting; 19 U.S.C. 1466.

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 111350

                        December 10, 1990


VES-13-18-CO:R:P:C 111350 RAH

CATEGORY:  Carriers

Chief, Residual Liquidation and Protest Branch
U.S. Customs Service
6 World Trade Center
New York, N.Y.

RE:  Vessel Repair; Painting; 19 U.S.C.  1466.

Dear Sir:

     This is in response to your memorandum of October 3, 1990,
forwarding a petition for review on vessel repair entry number
514-3004240-1.

FACTS:

     The record reflects that the SEA-LAND CRUSADER, voyage 029,
arrived at the port of Elizabeth, New Jersey on June 27, 1990,
and a vessel repair entry was filed on the same day.

     An application for relief was filed on August 22, 1990,
which was denied in part by the New York Region for lack of proof
that paint was of U.S. origin.  The subject of this ruling is a
petition for review in the form of a letter dated September 14,
1990, claiming that all paint supplied to the SEA-LAND CRUSADER
in Haina, Dominican Republic was manufactured in the United
States.

ISSUE:

     Whether the paint for which the petitioner seeks relief 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.

     Painting, including labor and materials, has long been held
                              - 2 -

to be a dutiable repair. T.D. 49532.  There are limited
situations in which painting is not subject to duty.  For
example, it is not subject to duty if it is an integral part of a
repair necessitated by a casualty, and necessary to restore the
safety and seaworthiness of the vessel.  C.I.E. 1043/60.

     It is Customs position with regard to materials such as
paint, which have been manufactured and purchased in the United
States and installed aboard a U.S. documented vessel by other
than U.S. residents or regular crew, the labor alone is
dutiable. See, T.D. 75-257.  In our adherence to the policy set
forth in T.D. 75-257, however, it has come to our attention in
the past that affidavits have been submitted which misrepresent
the place of manufacture of the article in question.  Inasmuch as
we have come to learn of this misrepresentation, it is our policy
to require evidence beyond an affidavit from an interested party
to establish U.S. manufacture and U.S. purchase.

     In support of its claim, the petitioner submits a "FAX"
dated July 26, 1990, from International Paint (USA) Inc., stating
that "...all marine paints supplied [to the petitioner] under
blanket order No. 185-NC-18 O.E. (annual contract) in the United
States will be manufactured by International Paint in the United
States."  The petitioner also submits a self-serving document
providing:

          In order to be able to maintain our vessels,
          it is unavoidable that we use foreign labor
          in certain ports during the vessels voyage.
          This labor immediately will be instructed to
          use their tools when doing maintenance on our
          vessels and charge us for it.  However when
          applying paints such paint will be supplied
          by our vessels.  All paints we purchase are
          bought from a vendor in the United States.
          This vendor is selected after a bid process
          and once selected is given the exclusive
          contract for supplying paints to our vessels
          at agreed upon prices which are fixed for
          the entire duration of the contract
          (approximately one year).

     There are two invoices from Bobo's Maintenance in Rio Haina,
Dominican Republic, regarding the painting in question.  One
invoice, Job No. CD-6118, is entitled "Work Report" and describes
the labor to paint the vessel and includes the cost.  The other
invoice, Job No. CD-6118, entitled "Report of Items Consumed"
lists the paint.  The latter invoice does not contain any
evidence that the paint was owner-supplied or of U.S.
manufacture.  Furthermore, there is no proof, other than a self
serving statement by the petitioner, that the paint "consumed"
                              - 3-

was supplied to the petitioner by International Paint (USA),
Inc., or that it was U.S. manufactured, as the petitioner claims.
Accordingly, the paint is dutiable.

HOLDING:

     Following a thorough review of the evidence provided, and as
detailed in the law and analysis section of this ruling, the
petition for review is denied in full.

     If you have any further questions regarding this matter,
please do not hesitate to contact our office.

                                   Sincerely,



                                   B. James Fritz
                                   Chief
                                   Carrier Rulings Branch