HQ 113011: Vessel Repair Entry No. VR-C18-0020249-6; Cleaning; S/L EXPEDITION; V-67; 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 113011

                         April 19, 1994

VES-13-18-CO:R:IT:C 113011 GEV

CATEGORY:  Carriers

Regional Director
Commercial Operations Division
U.S. Customs Service
423 Canal Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-2341

RE:  Vessel Repair Entry No. VR-C18-0020249-6; Cleaning;
     S/L EXPEDITION; V-67; 19 U.S.C.   1466

Dear Sir:

     This is in response to your memorandum dated January 21, 1994,
forwarding a petition for review covering the above-referenced
vessel repair entry.  Our findings are set forth below.

FACTS:

     The S/L EXPEDITION is a U.S.-flag vessel owned and operated
by Sea-Land Service, Inc.  The subject vessel underwent foreign
repairs in the Dominican Republic during May of 1993.  Subsequent
to the completion of these repairs the vessel arrived in the United
States at Jacksonville, Florida, on May 13, 1993.  A vessel repair
entry was filed on the date of arrival.

     An application for relief from duties assessed pursuant to
the vessel repair statute was submitted to the New Orleans VRLU. 
The application was granted in part and denied in part.  A petition
for review of the decision of the New Orleans VRLU was submitted.

     At issue is the cost of cleaning (i.e., sweeping) the decks
of the vessel listed on Cleaner Maintenance Shipping, S.A. invoice
no. 560.  The New Orleans VRLU held this cost dutiable based on
their finding that it was in preparation for painting (listed on
Cleaner Maintenance Shipping, S.A. invoice no. 561) which is
dutiable under the vessel repair statute.  The petitioner contends
that the sweeping in question was not associated with the
aforementioned painting and therefore is non-dutiable.  
                              - 2 -

ISSUE:

     Whether the evidence presented is sufficient to support a
finding that the cleaning in question was in preparation of
painting so as to render such cleaning costs dutiable under 19
U.S.C.   1466.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     Title 19, United States Code,   1466, provides in pertinent
part for payment of duty in the amount of 50 percent ad valorem of
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 engage in such trade.

     In regard to painting costs, Customs has long-held, and the
petitioner does not dispute, that such costs are dutiable under
the vessel repair statute.  (See T.D.s 43322, 48377 and 49531)  In
addition, Customs has long-held, and petitioner does not dispute,
that cleaning operations in preparation for painting are dutiable
as an integral part of the painting. (See C.I.E. 820/60 and T.D.
49531)

     Upon reviewing the documentation covering the cleaning at
issue, we note that the vessel repair entry (CF 226) prepared by
the petitioner states, in part, "SWEEPING DECKS FROM WHEELHOUSE TO
MAIN DECK,...SWEEP UNDER CATWALKS."  It further provides, "PAINT
OUT PRIMER SPOTS ON WHEELHOUSE...PAINTED DECKS AT NO. 7 HATCH,
PAINTED ROSE BOX AT NO. 9 HATCH."  The application for relief,
dated July 9, 1993, states, in part, "SWEPT DOWN MAIN DECKS," and
"PRIMED SPOTS ON THE WHEELHOUSE, DECK AT #7 HATCH, AND BEAMS AND
ROSE BOX AT #9 HATCH."  The Cleaner Maintenance Shipping, S.A.
invoice no. 560 states, in part, "SWEEPING DECKS FROM WHEELHOUSE
TO MAIN DECK...SWEEP UNDER CATWALKS."  The Cleaner Maintenance
Shipping, S.A. invoice no. 561 states, "PAINTING SPOTS ON WEELHOUSE
[sic]. PAINTING FLOOR AT #7 HATCH. PAINTING BEAMS AND BOX ROSE AT
#9 HATCH."

     The petitioner contends that the decks swept were not painted
and that the "floor" referred to was inside hatch #7 and inside
hatch #9.  We do not believe the record supports this claim.  While
some painting may actually have occurred on the wheelhouse as the
petitioner suggests, the evidence discussed above supports the
finding that the areas that were painted were swept beforehand. 
The distinction between the words "floor" and "deck" which is
critical to the petitioner's claim cannot be discerned from the
evidence presented, particularly the documentation that was
previously prepared by the petitioner (i.e., the CF 226 and the
application).  Accordingly, we find that the cleaning costs in
question were in preparation of a dutiable operation (i.e.,
painting) and therefore are dutiable. 



                              - 3 -

HOLDING:

     The evidence presented is sufficient to support a finding that
the cleaning in question was in preparation of painting so as to
render such costs dutiable under 19 U.S.C.   1466.

     Accordingly, the petition is denied.

                              Sincerely,




                              Arthur P. Schifflin
                              Chief
                              Carrier Rulings Branch