HQ 111006: Vessel Repair; C27-0011777-6; SEA-LAND NAVIGATOR; Casualty; Fuel Oil Pipe Lines; Temporary Repairs

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 111006

                          July 27, 1990

VES-13-18-CO:R:P:C 111006 GV

CATEGORY:  Carriers

Chief, Technical Branch
Pacific Region
1 World Trade Center
Long Beach, California 90831

RE:  Vessel Repair; C27-0011777-6; SEA-LAND NAVIGATOR;
     Casualty; Fuel Oil Pipe Lines; Temporary Repairs

Dear Sir:

     This is in reference to your memorandum dated April 13,
1990, transmitting an application for relief from duties assessed
pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1466.  You request that we review eight (8)
items contained in the above entry.  Our findings are set forth
below.

FACTS:

     The SEA-LAND NAVIGATOR is a U.S.-flag vessel owned by Sea-
Land Service, Inc. ("Sea-Land") of Edison, New Jersey.  The
subject vessel had the work in question performed on it in
Kaohsiung, Taiwan, during January 15-22, 1990.  Subsequent to the
completion of the work the vessel arrived in the United States in
Long Beach, California, on February 3, 1990.  A vessel repair
entry was filed on the date of arrival.

     An application dated March 30, 1990, with supporting
documentation was timely filed.  The applicant states that the
subject vessel, purchased from the now defunct U.S. Lines, has an
inherent design problem with the fuel oil transfer main.  These
fuel oil pipe lines are laid in a pipe tunnel forward of the
engine room under the cargo holds which runs the entire length of
the vessel.  This piping arrangement was modified by the vessel's
pervious owner.  The modification consisted of installing
expansion joints in the lines in an effort to reduce future
failures.  In the case under consideration, a prior temporary
repair in an expansion joint (which consisted of isolating the
leaking expansion joint by encapsulating it in a cement box,
until permanent repairs could be carried out) failed causing the
pipe tunnel to become pressurized with fuel oil which leaked into
several cargo holds and double bottom tanks.

                              - 2 -

     Although future modifications to prevent a recurrence are
contemplated, the applicant contends that duties assessed on the
foreign repairs under consideration should be remitted because
they were emergency repairs required by the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG).  The applicant further states that, "...we had no choice
but to perform the repairs in Kaohsiung."  In support of this
claim the applicant has submitted the following:  (1) an unsigned
copy of what is alleged to be a USCG Special Inspection Report;
(2) a copy of a USCG permit to proceed from Honolulu, Hawaii, to
Kaohsiung for the purpose of making repairs; (3) a copy of a
letter from the USCG Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection,
Honolulu, to Sea-Land stating the conditions under which the
subject vessel was permitted to sail to Kaohsiung; (3) a sketch
indicating the pipe location and the list of problems found; (4)
two photographs of repairs to the No. 9 hatch; and (5) shipyard
invoices of the work in question.

ISSUE:

     Whether evidence is presented sufficient to prove that
foreign repairs performed on the subject vessel for which relief
is sought were necessitated by a casualty occurrence, thus
warranting remission pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1466(d)(1).

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.
Section 1466(d)(1) provides for 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" necessary 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 vessel repair
statute (19 U.S.C. 1466) has been interpreted by the Customs
Court as something which, like stress of weather, comes with
unexpected force or violence, such as a fire, explosion, or
collision (see Dollar Steamship Lines, Inc., v. United States, 5
Cust. Ct. 28-29, C.D. 362 (1940)).  It should be noted that
absent specific evidence to the contrary, we consider foreign
repairs to have been necessitated by normal wear and tear, a
result which does not permit remission (see C.S.D. 79-32).

                              - 3 -

     In regard to the applicant's claim, we note that in view of
the Customs Court's interpretation noted above, damage attributed
to the failure of a prior temporary repair cannot be considered a
casualty for purposes of section 1466(d)(1), especially in view
of the fact that the subject vessel proceeded in a state of
disrepair from the U.S. (Honolulu) to a foreign shipyard
(Kaohsiung).  To grant remission under these circumstances would
circumvent the intent of the vessel repair statute.  Furthermore,
the fact that the repairs in question may have been required by
the USCG or, for that matter, any other federal agency, is not in
and of itself sufficient for purposes of obtaining remission
under section 1466(d)(1).  In addition, we note that the USCG
permit to proceed provides in part that, "The said Master
requesting that the said vessel be permitted to proceed to the
port of Kaohsiung, Taiwan, ROC for the purpose of making said
repairs ..."  Accordingly, although the subject repairs may have
been required by the USCG, their being done in Kaohsiung was at
the behest of the applicant and not the USCG.

HOLDING:

     The evidence presented is insufficient to prove that the
foreign repairs performed on the subject vessel for which the
applicant seeks relief were necessitated by a casualty
occurrence.  Accordingly, remission pursuant to 19 U.S.C.
1466(d)(1) is denied.

                                   Sincerely,




                                   B. James Fritz
                                   Chief
                                   Carrier Rulings Branch