HQ 112665: Protest No. 1101-92-100598; Vessel Repair Entry No. C11- 0034380-0; M/V RAINBOW HOPE; Casualty; 19 U.S.C. 1466(d)(1).

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 112665

                            May 26, 1993

VES-13-18-CO:R:IT:C  112665 DEC

CATEGORY:  Carriers

Deputy Assistant Regional Commissioner
Classification and Value Branch
Attention:  Regional Vessel Repair Liquidation Unit
New York, New York  10048-0945

RE:  Protest No. 1101-92-100598; Vessel Repair Entry No. C11-
     0034380-0; M/V RAINBOW HOPE; Casualty; 19 U.S.C.   1466(d)(1).

Dear Sir:

     This is in response to your memorandum dated March 31, 1993,
transmitting the above referenced protest and supporting
documentation for our review.  Our ruling on this matter is set out
below.


FACTS:

     The M/V RAINBOW HOPE arrived at Salem, New Jersey, on November
27, 1991.  An application seeking relief from vessel repair duties
was filed on March 19, 1992.  Relief was denied for insufficient
evidentiary support to sustain a finding of a casualty.  Customs
denied the petition for relief for failure to provide satisfactory
evidence of a casualty (Headquarters Ruling 112167 (May 20, 1992)). 

     The record reflects that on November 15, 1991, the RAINBOW
HOPE, while engaged in cargo operations at Praia de Vatoria, Azores,
experienced an on-board crane malfunction which prevented the
reloading of its hatch covers.  Since the vessel was required to
properly secure its hatch covers prior to being put to sea to ensure
its seaworthiness, a technician repaired the ship's crane.  The
protestant seeks remission of vessel repair duties based on a claim
that these repairs were a result of a casualty.


ISSUE:

     Whether sufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate
that the equipment malfunction constituted a casualty entitling the
protestant to remission of vessel repair duties. 




                                 -2-


LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     Title 19, United States Code, section 1466 provides, in
paragraph (1), subsection (d), that duty may be remitted if good and
sufficient evidence is furnished establishing that the vessel was
compelled by stress of weather or other casualty to be 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.

     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. 23, 29,
C.D. 362 (1940).  Consequently, a casualty, in the vessel repair
context, arises from a similar identifiable event.  Absent evidence
of such an event, Customs considers the repair to have been
necessitated by normal wear and tear.  C.S.D. 89-95.

     Upon a review of all of the evidence submitted, Customs finds
no basis for granting relief.  While the protestant has provided
documentation revealing that the vessel's repairs were required due
to its crane missing a cotterpin, no explanation of how or why the
cotterpin was lost is presented.  Under these circumstances, "good
and sufficient" evidence of a casualty occurrence has not been
provided.  Accordingly, remission of vessel repair duties shall be
denied.


HOLDING:

     After thorough review of the evidence presented, and as
detailed in the Law and Analysis portion of this ruling, this
protest seeking remission of vessel repair duties is denied.

                                     Sincerely,




                                     Stuart P. Seidel
                                     Director, International Trade 
                                     Compliance Division