HQ 110715: Baltimore Vessel Repair Entry No C13-0010645-2, dated August 15, 1989, M/V AMERICAN FALCON

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 110715

                           May 4, 1990


VES-13-18-CO:R:P:C  110715 BEW

CATEGORY:  Carriers

Deputy Assistant Regional Commissioner
Commercial Operations
ATTN:  Regional Vessel Repair Liquidation Unit
New York, New York 10048-0945

RE:  Baltimore Vessel Repair Entry No C13-0010645-2, dated
     August 15, 1989, M/V AMERICAN FALCON

Dear Sir:

     This is in reference to an application for relief from
duties and accompanying documentation, filed by Crowley Maritime
Corporation in relation to the above referenced vessel repair
entry dated August 15, 1989, transmitted to this office by
memorandum dated December 18, 1989.

     The record shows that the shipyard work in question was
performed on the subject vessel in Bridgend, United Kingdom, and
in Rotterdam, Holland, during the period April 8 through
April 15, 1989.  The subject vessel arrived in the United States
at the port of Baltimore, Maryland, on April 29, 1989.

     The entire vessel repair entry involves an estimated duty
of $1,740.

     The applicant claims that the repairs or equipment purchases
described in the documents were necessitated by a casualty, i.
e., damage caused by stevedore negligence.  It claims that the
vessel was compelled, because of damage, to make repairs and to
purchase such equipment to secure the safety and seaworthiness of
the vessel to enable to reach its port od destination.

     You have requested our advice concerning certain work and
services performed aboard.

ISSUE:

     Whether the foreign work performed on the subject vessel is
dutiable under 19 U.S.C. 1466.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     Title 19, United States Code, section 1466, provides in
pertinent part for payment of an ad valorem duty of 50 percent
of the cost of foreign repairs to a vessel documented under the
laws of the United States to engage in the foreign or coastwise
trade.

     Section 1466 (d)(1) provides that the Secretary of the
Treasury is authorized to remit or refund such duties if the
owner or master of the vessel submits good and sufficient
evidence that the vessel was compelled by stress of weather or
other casualty to put into such 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 vessel repair
statute (19 U.S.C. 1466), has been interpreted by the Customs
Court as something which, like stress of weather, comes from
unexpected force or violence, such as from a fire, explosion, or
collision (see Dollar Steamship Lines, v. United States, 5 Cust.
Ct. 28-29, C.D. 362 (1940)).

     A clear requirement of the statute is that the vessel be
compelled by such a casualty to seek foreign shipyard service to
secure the safety and seaworthiness of the vessel and to enable
her to safely reach her port of destination.

     The file contains copies of the contemporaneously prepared
Master's report and the vessel's log concerning the damage and
repair.  These documents amount to reports on the presence of
damage, but provide no evidence as to how the damage occurred.
Absent clear proof of an identifiable event resulting in damage,
such damage is assumed to have resulted from ordinary wear and
tear.  The documentation submitted sustains a finding of wear and
tear, but is insufficient to support a finding of a casualty as
provided in section 1466(d)(1).  Accordingly, the cost incurred
for repairs under Aber Marine Services and the Asea Brown Boveri
invoices to this vessel repair entry is dutiable.

     In Headquarters ruling 106543 JM, we held that mere cleaning
operations are not dutiable.  However, cleaning operations which
remove rust and deterioration or worn parts, and which are a
necessary factor in the effective restoration of a vessel to its
former state of preservation, constitute vessel repairs (See
C.I.E. 429/61).  Our review of the DHS Services invoice reveals
that no repairs were performed.  Pursuant to C.I.E. 429/61 the
cost for the cleaning services rendered is nondutiable.

     Pursuant to C.D. 1830, expenses incurred for shipping,
crating and packing are not expenses of repair, and as such are
not subject to duty under section 1466.  Accordingly, the
lashing gear listed on the Sealash BV invoice is nondutiable.

                                     Sincerely,




                                     B. James Fritz
                                     Chief
                                     Carrier Rulings Branch