HQ 110887: Long Beach Vessel Repair Entry No. C27-00111745-3, dated December 18, 1989; M/V SEALAND PATRIOT, Voyage No. 101. Application; casualty; heavy weather damage, 19 U.S.C. 1466(d); 19 CFR 4.14(c)

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 110887

                         August 10, 1990

VES-13-18-CO:R:P:C  110887 BEW

CATEGORY:  Carriers

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

Re:  Long Beach Vessel Repair Entry No. C27-00111745-3, dated
     December 18, 1989; M/V SEALAND PATRIOT, Voyage No. 101.
     Application; casualty; heavy weather damage, 19 U.S.C.
     1466(d); 19 CFR 4.14(c)

Dear Sir:

     This is in reference to a memorandum dated March 1, 1990,
from your office which transmitted an application for relief from
duties filed by Sea-Land Service, Inc., relating to vessel
repair entry No. C27-00111745-3 filed on December 18, 1989, for
foreign repairs performed on the M/V SEALAND PATRIOT, voyage
101.

FACTS:

     The record shows that the shipyard work in question was
performed on the subject vessel in Yokohama, Japan, during the
month of November 1989.  The subject vessel arrived in the United
States at the port of Long Beach, California, on December 18,
1989.

     The entire vessel repair entry involves a potential duty of
$15,652.33.

     The applicant claims that relief for the subject items
should be granted because the items should be classified as
nondutiable items covered under title 19, United States Code,
section 1466 and sections 4.14(d) of the Customs Regulations.

     You have requested our advice concerning three (3) items
alleged to have been caused by a casualty.  The applicant claims
that the repairs and equipment purchases described in the
documents were necessitated by a casualty, i.e., the vessel took

a heavy roll to port and back again to starboard, and a freak sea
boarded aft of number 10 hatch in way of the starboard gangway.
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 it to reach its port of
destination.

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(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.

     Paragraph (1), subsection (d) of section 1466 provides that
duty may also be remitted if good and sufficient evidence is
furnished establishing that the vessel was compelled by stress of
weather or other casualty to put into a foreign port to make
repairs to secure the safety and seaworthiness of the vessel to
enable her to reach her port of destination.  It is Customs
position that "port of destination" means a port in the United
States."

     The statute thus sets a three-part test which must be met in
order to qualify for remission under the subsection, these being:

     1.   The establishment of a casualty occurrence.

     2.   The establishment of unsafe and unseaworthy conditions.

     3.   The inability to reach the port of destination without
          obtaining foreign repairs.

     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 (ruling letter
106159, September 8, 1983).

     The applicant describes the repairs as follows:

     Item 3 -  Yokohama Engineering Works, LTD. Invoice No.
               9F421-1 - Damage to the starboard accommodation
               ladder, ladder securing device and ladder hoisting
               motor,

     Item 19 - OMI Engineering Co., LTD, invoice No. 89-213 -
               Damage to starboard side accommodation ladder,
               damage to main deck house closer plating, starbard
               side ship's store crane power controller and
               various electrical wiring ripped loose from wire
               races.

     Item 20 - Vendor - TOMOE Ltd. - new accommodation ladder
               steps.

     The file contains copies of the contemporaneously prepared
Master's report concerning the damage and repair work, the vessel
log showing the weather conditions and the damage sustained, and
a certified Marine Note of Protest concerning the damage.
The evidence submitted establishes that the damage to the subject
vessel was clearly the result of a casualty within the meaning of
section 1466.  Accordingly, the cost incurred for the subject
repairs is non-dutiable.

HOLDING:

     The evidence presented is sufficient to prove that the
foreign repairs performed on the subject vessel were necessitated
by a casualty occurrence, thus warranting remission pursuant to
19 U.S.C. 1466.

                                     Sincerely,



                                     B. James Fritz
                                     Chief
                                     Carrier Rulings Branch