HQ 112634: Vessel Repair; Casualty; Negligence; Stevedoring Damage; 19 U.S.C. 1466(d); SEA-LAND EXPLORER, V-122; Entry No. C27- 0067825-6.

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 112634

                         August 16, 1993

VES-13-18 CO:R:IT:C  112634 JBW

CATEGORY:  Carriers

Deputy Regional Director
Commercial Operations
Pacific Region
1 World Trade Center
Long Beach, CA 90831

RE:  Vessel Repair; Casualty; Negligence; Stevedoring Damage; 19
     U.S.C.   1466(d); SEA-LAND EXPLORER, V-122; Entry No. C27-
     0067825-6.

Dear Sir:

     This letter is in response to your memorandum of March 16,
1993, which forwards for our review and ruling the petition for
review filed in conjunction with the above-referenced vessel repair
entry.

FACTS:

     The record reflects that the subject vessel, the SEA-LAND
EXPLORER, arrived at the port of Los Angeles, California, on April
26, 1992.  Vessel repair entry, number C27-0067825-6, was filed on
April 28, 1992.  The entry indicated that the # 7B
Hatch and Hatch Coaming were repaired while the vessel was docked
in Kaohsuing, Taiwan.  The hatch cover was damaged when
longshoremen in Naha, Japan, dropped it from a crane.  The vessel
operator filed an application for relief.  Citing the lack of
adequate evidence to support the casualty claim, this office denied
the application.  Headquarters Ruling Letter 112394, dated December
14, 1992.  The petitioner has submitted additional evidence to
demonstrate the cause and extent of the casualty.  This evidence
includes copies of the vessel log, American Bureau of Shipping
reports, and a statement by the Master attesting to the damage and
the need for repairs. 

ISSUE:

     Whether the petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that work performed on the vessel, which was required
to repair damage that resulted from a stevedoring accident, is a
casualty under 19 U.S.C.   1466.

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.  

     The statute provides for the 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" and were necessary to secure the safety and
seaworthiness of the vessel to enable her to reach her port of
destination.  19 U.S.C.  1466(d)(1).  The term casualty, as it is
used in the statute, has been interpreted as something that, 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. 23, 28-29, C.D. 362 (1940).  In the
absence of evidence of such a casualty causing event, we must
consider the repair to have been necessitated by normal wear and
tear.  C.S.D. 89-95, 23 Cust. B. & Dec., No. 43, 4, 5 (1989).

     The Customs Service has held that damage caused by the
negligence of stevedores is a casualty provided that the damage
was not attributable to wear and tear or to the failure to replace
or maintain a worn part.  Headquarters Ruling Letter 111572, dated
October 30, 1991; C.I.E. 1161/62, dated October 26, 1962.  From the
statement of the master, the log extracts, and the report of the
American Bureau of Shipping surveyor, we conclude that the accident
that occurred in Naha, Japan, was a casualty that impaired the
safety and seaworthiness of the vessel.  The cost for the repair
of the hatch is consequently remissible.

HOLDING:

     The petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that the accident that occurred in Naha, Japan, was a
casualty that impaired the safety and seaworthiness of the vessel. 
Accordingly, the cost of the hatch repair is remissible.  The
petition is allowed in full.

                              Sincerely,




                              Acting Chief