HQ 224296: Protest and Application for Further Review No. 3126-92- 100017; Interest Due on Vessel Repair Entry; 19 U.S.C. 1466; 19 U.S.C. 1505; Notice of Liquidation

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 224296

                        February 26, 1993

ENT-1-03-CO:R:C:E 224296 CB

CATEGORY:  Entry

Deputy Regional Commissioner
Commercial Operations
Pacific Region
U.S. Customs Service
One World Trade Center
Suite 705
Long Beach, CA 90831-0700

RE:  Protest and Application for Further Review No. 3126-92-
     100017; Interest Due on Vessel Repair Entry; 19 U.S.C.
      1466; 19 U.S.C.  1505; Notice of Liquidation

Dear Sir/Madam:

     The above-referenced protest and application for further
review was forwarded to this office for further review.  We have
considered the points raised and our decision follows.

FACTS:

     The subject protest covers the assessment of interest on
duties owed.  The protestant filed a vessel repair entry on
September 19, 1988 and liquidated on June 19, 1992.  Customs
records show that the bill date was the same date, June 19, 1992.

     Protestant claims that after checking with U.S. Customs
because no bill had been received, it discovered that the entry
had been liquidated and that interest in the amount of $2,147.40
was owed.  Protestant alleges that while the bill was received by
protestant, it was not routed to a knowledgeable person within
the corporation until September, 1992.  Therefore, interest
charges are not warranted.

ISSUE:

     Whether the assessment of interest was proper?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     Initially, it must be determined whether a delinquent vessel
repair entry is subject to the assessment of interest.  Section
466 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C.  1466)
imposes an ad valorem duty of 50 per centum on equipment and 
repairs of vessels performed in a foreign country.  The
legislative history to this section was considered in United
States v. Gissel, 353 F. Supp. 768, 772 (S.D. Tex. 1973), aff'd,
493 F.2d 27 (5th Cir. 1974), wherein the district court stated:

     The Tariff Act of 1930 included within its formal title the
     following purpose:  "An Act to provide revenue, to regulate
     commerce with foreign countries, ...."  46 Stat. 590 (1930). 
     This statute provides for the imposition and collection of
     customs duties upon entry of various foreign merchandise
     into the United States.  Since foreign repair parts on
     vessels were generally thought of and classified as dutiable
     merchandise . . ., such repairs were expressly included as
     dutiable merchandise within a provision of the Tariff Act. 
     The tariff law has contained such a provision in
     substantially the same form since the enactment of section
     23 of the Tariff Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 183 (1866).

Therefore, in view of the above, it can only be concluded that
the ad valorem duty imposed under 19 U.S.C.  1466 is a customs
duty subject to the assessment of interest as provided for under
19 U.S.C.  1505(c).

     Protestant contends that it should not have to pay the
assessed interest because the pertinent area within its company
did not receive the bill for the duties owed until several months
later.  The Customs Regulations implementing and administering
the vessel repair statute are found in 19 CFR Part 4.  Section
4.14(c) states that, after a vessel repair entry has been
liquidated, the bulletin notice of liquidation will be posted. 
The Court of International Trade has stated that "proper notice
of liquidation refers to the bulletin notice of liquidation." 
See Penrod Drilling Co. v. United States, 13 CIT 1005, 1009, 727
F. Supp. 1463, 1467 (1989), aff'd, 925 F.2d 406 (1991); see also,
Goldhofer Fahrzeugwerk GmbH v. United States, 13 CIT 54, 706 F.
Supp. 892, aff'd 885 F.2d 858 (Fed. Cir. 1989).  It is the
importer who has the obligation to check all notices posted to
determine whether its goods have been liquidated.  Penrod
Drilling, 13 CIT at 1009, 727 F. Supp. at 1467; Goldhofer, 13 CIT
at 58, 706 F. Supp. at 895; Omni U.S.A., Inc. v. United States,
11 CIT 480, 483, 663 F. Supp. 1130, 1133 (1987), aff'd, 840 F.2d
912 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 817 (1988).  

     The Customs Service obligation was met once it posted the
bulletin notice of liquidation as required.  The fact that once
the bill was received at protestant's corporate offices it took
several months to route it to the correct office is not Customs
concern or responsibility.  Every person who deals with the
Customs Service has the ability to have bills directed to the
proper individual within its organization by using the optional 
additional identification procedure set forth in 19 CFR  24.5(d). 
By use of that procedure, bills can be directed to the location
desired by the filer.  Protestant does not allege that it
employed the additional information procedure of 19 CFR  24.5(d). 
Instead, protestant insists that Customs somehow locate the
proper person within the company who can process the bill. 
Protestant's failure to employ the procedure set in 19 CFR
 24.5(d) is fatal to its argument.  The date which triggers the
assessment of duty is the liquidation date.  The statute provides
that a delinquent entry will bear interest from the 15th day
after the date of liquidation.  19 U.S.C.  1505(c).  As stated by
the Court of International Trade in Goldhofer, "[a] reasonably
prudent importer is amply apprised of any action taken with
respect to his merchandise through the bulletin process and must
merely monitor the bulletin to be aware of liquidation."  13 CIT
at 60.

     Finally, protestant also alleges that once the bill is
received it is incomprehensible because it does not indicate what
the bill is for.  This complaint is unfounded.  The bill sent out
by the Customs Service clearly indicates:  a) it is a Customs
Service bill; b) references the entry number; c) the type of
charge; and d) the amount owed.  Therefore, there is no reason
why an importer would not be able to match a bill with an entry.

HOLDING:

     Vessel repair duties are subject to the interest provisions
of 19 U.S.C.  1505.  The bulletin notice of liquidation is the
only required notice.  Therefore, you should DENY this protest in
full.

     A copy of this decision should be attached to the Customs
Form 19 and provided to the protestant as part of the notice of
action on the protest.

                                   Sincerely,




                                   John Durant, Director
                                   Commercial Rulings Division