HQ 112125: Vessel repair; Casualty alleged; Incident remote from repair; Vessel PRESIDENT HOOVER, V-120; Vessel repair entry number 335-0100608-5

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 112125

                          May 13, 1992

VES-13-18-CO:R:IT:C  112125 LLB

CATEGORY: Carriers

Chief, Technical Branch
Commercial Operations Division
Pacific Region
One World Trade Center
Long Beach, California 90731

RE:  Vessel repair; Casualty alleged; Incident remote from
     repair; Vessel PRESIDENT HOOVER, V-120; Vessel repair entry
     number 335-0100608-5

Dear Sir:

     Reference is made to your memorandum of March 3, 1992, which
forwards for our consideration the above-captioned application
for relief from the assessment of vessel repair duties filed by
American President Lines, Ltd.

FACTS:

     The record reflects that the vessel PRESIDENT HOOVER
completed its voyage number 120 with its arrival at the port of
Seattle, Washington, on November 30, 1991, and the filing of a
full and complete vessel repair entry two days later.  Various
inspection and repair costs are claimed to be duty-free by reason
of having been necessitated by a weather-related casualty event.

     A vessel repair entry had previously been filed concerning
the prior voyage number 119, the circumstances of which included
a heavy weather crossing from the United States to the Far East.
Reference to the vessel's deck log for voyage 119 reveals that
force 10 winds and heavy seas were encountered.  Damage related
to that incident was repaired at that time and the evidence was
considered by the proper vessel repair liquidation unit since the
duty amount in question was less than $2,500.00.

     The present matter involving voyage 120 concerns inspections
and repairs which are claimed to the direct result of the heavy
weather crossing two months earlier.  The repairs address cracks
in hull plating, ballast tank side plating, and web frames.

ISSUE:

     Whether vessel repair duty assessed upon the value of repair
and inspection costs may be remitted by reason of a weather-
related casualty claim relating to a previous voyage.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     Title 19, United States Code, section 1466(a), 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 the foreign or
coastwise trade, or vessels intended to be employed in such
trade.

     Title 19, United States Code, subsection 1466(d)(1), states
that the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to remit or
refund such duties if the owner or master furnishes good and
sufficient evidence that the vessel was compelled to put into a
foreign port and 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. 28-29, C.D. 362 (1940).  In this sense, a "casualty"
arises from an identifiable event of some sort.  In the absence
of evidence of such a casualty event, we must consider the repair
to have been necessitated by normal wear and tear.  See Customs
Ruling Letter 106159 LLB (9-8-83).

     The fact that the damage complained of and the repairs
addressing that damage occurred on separate voyages is critical
in the disposition of this matter.  It has been the long-standing
position of the Customs Service that by repairs being deferred,
seaworthiness is demonstrated.  In this case, two months passed
between the weather incident and the repair operations.  In a
published ruling (C.I.E. 538/62, May 22, 1962), Customs held
that:

          ...remission is not warranted where damage
          results from a casualty in one voyage, and
          repairs are obtained in a later one.  Relief
          may be allowed however, in accordance with
          section [1466(d)(1)]...provided the delay is
          adequately explained.  Mere failure to
          discover the damage or extent thereof before
          a voyage terminates does not constitute an
          adequate explanation.


Given the rather clear direction of published precedent, taken in
conjunction with the fact that the entire claim for relief
relates to casualty matters going to a previous voyage, there is
no question that the claim for relief in this case must be
denied.

HOLDING:

     Following a thorough review of the facts in this case as
well as an analysis of the law and applicable precedents which
bear upon those facts, we have determined that the Application
for Relief should be denied for the reasons set forth in the Law
and Analysis section of this ruling.

                              Sincerely,




                              B. James Fritz
                              Chief
                              Carrier Rulings Branch