HQ 112857: Vessel Repair; 19 U.S.C. 1466; Petition; S.S. GLACIER BAY, V- 9115; Entry No. C31-0005022-9

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 112857

                           October 18, 1993

VES-13-18-CO:R:IT:C  112857 GOB

CATEGORY: Carriers

Deputy Regional Director
Commercial Operations
Pacific Region
One World Trade Center
Long Beach, California 90831

RE:  Vessel Repair; 19 U.S.C. 1466; Petition; S.S. GLACIER BAY, V-
     9115; Entry No. C31-0005022-9

Dear Sir:

     This is in response to your memorandum dated August 4, 1993,
which forwarded the petition submitted by B.A. McKenzie & Co., Inc.
on behalf of Trinidad Corporation ("petitioner"), the vessel
operator.

FACTS:

     The record reflects that the S.S. GLACIER BAY ("vessel")
arrived at the port of Valdez, Alaska on December 14, 1991.  Vessel
repair entry C31-0005022-9 was filed on December 16, 1991. 
Shipyard work was performed on the vessel in Singapore.

     By letter dated April 9, 1993 (112451), we issued our ruling
with respect to the petitioner's application for relief, which was
allowed in part and denied in part.

Petitioner's Claims

     The petitioner requests relief with respect to the following
items.

          1. Item 514 on page 47 of the invoices - $1,000.  Spare
24" angle valve.  The petitioner claims that this item is a
modification, not a repair.  It states that a foundation was
necessary in order to keep the subject valve, which was an existing
spare, as a permanent spare in its pump room.  A new angle valve
was not purchased.

          2. Item 816.1 on page 73 of the invoices - $4,406. 
Additional steel work - upper deck compensation plates.  The
petitioner contends that this item is a modification which was
segregated from a repair which was declared under item 803.  It 

                              - 2 -

contends that a drawing shows that certain gouging and welding was
accomplished prior to the attachment of the compensation plates by
welding.

          3. Item 816.7 on page 74 of the invoices - $130.  FOT (S)
modification.  The petitioner asserts that, similar to item 816.1
supra, a repair was accomplished and invoiced under item 803 prior
to this modification item which was performed to prevent future
cracks.

          4. Item 901 on pages 76-78 of the invoices - $45,240. 
Heating coil system retrofit in engine room.  The petitioner states
that this item is not a replacement of an existing item, but is an
addition which permits the vessel operator to seek to carry cargo
which it previously could not carry.  It describes the work as "a
new design system."  The petitioner claims that cargo tanks were
originally constructed without heating coils.  Subsequently,
heating coils were installed, but the steam supply and condensate
return systems were not installed.  These systems are necessary to
make the cargo tank heating system functional.  The petitioner
states that the previous installation of the heating coils was
reported and allowed as a nondutiable modification on a previous
voyage.    
                
ISSUE:

     Whether the above-stated work is a nondutiable modification
or a repair which is subject to duty under 19 U.S.C. 1466.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     In its application of the vessel repair statute, the Customs
Service has held that modifications, alterations, or additions to
the hull and fittings of a vessel are not subject to vessel repair
duties.  The identification of work constituting modifications vis-
a-vis work constituting repairs has evolved from judicial and
administrative precedent.  In considering whether an operation has
resulted in a nondutiable modification, the following factors have
been considered:

          1.   Whether there is a permanent incorporation into the
hull or superstructure of a vessel, either in a structural sense
or as demonstrated by means of attachment so as to be indicative
of the intent to be permanently incorporated.  See United States
v. Admiral Oriental Line, 18 C.C.P.A. 137 (1930).

          2.   Whether in all likelihood an item would remain
aboard a vessel during an extended lay-up.

          3.   Whether an item constitutes a new design feature and
does not merely replace a part, fitting, or structure that is
performing a similar function.

                              - 3 -

          4.   Whether an item provides an improvement or
enhancement in operation or efficiency of the vessel.

     After a consideration of the evidence of record, we find that
the petitioner's claims are substantiated.  The information
submitted by the petitioner in its petition has been responsive to
certain questions which were not answered in the application stage
or by an examination of the invoices.  With respect to the second
and third items supra (816.1 and 816.7), the petitioner's statement
that repairs were declared in item 803 is substantiated.  We find
that the items at issue are modifications which are not subject to
duty under 19 U.S.C. 1466.  

HOLDING:

     The petition for relief is granted.



                              Sincerely,



                              Arthur P. Schifflin
                              Chief
                              Carrier Rulings Branch