United States International Trade Commision Rulings And Harmonized Tariff Schedule
faqs.org  Rulings By Number  Rulings By Category  Tariff Numbers
faqs.org > Rulings and Tariffs Home > Rulings By Number > 1991 HQ Rulings > HQ 0111251 - HQ 0111381 > HQ 0111361

Previous Ruling Next Ruling


HQ 111361


March 26, 1991

VES-13-20 CO:R:IT:C 111361 JBW

CATEGORY: CARRIER

Deputy Assistant Regional Commissioner
Commercial Operations c/o Regional Commissioner
New Orleans, LA 70130-2341

RE: Vessel Repair; Stress of Weather; Casualty; Remission; 19 U.S.C. 1466; 19 C.F.R. 4.14; MOON TIDE; Entry # C20- 0000517-6.

Dear Madam:

This letter is in response to your memorandum of October 15, 1990, which forwards for our review and ruling the application for relief filed on the above-referenced vessel repair entry.

FACTS:

The record reflects that the subject vessel, the M/V MOON TIDE, arrived at the port of Morgan City, Louisiana, on June 18, 1990. Vessel repair entry, number C20-0000517-6, was filed on the same day as arrival and indicated that repairs were made to the vessel in Trinidad.

The applicant contends that damage to the vessel resulted from stress of weather or casualty. In support of this claim, the applicant has submitted statements by the master explaining the events causing the damage, copies of the vessel log, invoices describing the repairs made, and a copy of the damage report filed by the master. These documents show that on May 9, 1990, the vessel was engaged in the operation of picking up and resetting a leg of an anchorage system used for ore ships off of Trinidad and Venezuela. The ship's log shows that this operation was being carried out in seas with swells of 10 to 12 feet. To reset the anchorage leg, a chain was employed. The tension on the chain caused by an abrupt thrust of the ship resulting from a large swell unseated the stern roller and forced the roller mount to breach the #19 port ballast tank.

ISSUE:

Whether the evidence submitted demonstrates that the repairs performed to the ship in a foreign shipyard were necessitated by stress of weather and were necessary to secure the safety and seaworthiness of the vessel.

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. The statute provides for the 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" and were necessary to secure the safety and seaworthiness of the vessel to enable her to reach her port of destination. 19 U.S.C. 1466(d)(1). Absent evidence to show that the damage was the result of stress of weather or casualty, we must conclude that the repairs were the result of wear and tear. See C.S.D. 89-95, 23 Cust. B. & Dec., No. 43, 4, 5 (1989).

The description of the weather conditions appearing in the record would not ordinarily justify remission under the general guidelines established by the Customs Service. T.D. 78-180, 12 Cust. B. & Dec. 382 (1978). However, we stressed in that ruling that the guidelines established are not conclusive and that if damage would not require a pounding force of the sea, then remission is possible under lesser conditions. Id. at 385. We determine in this case that the weather encountered by the ship was sufficient to cause the damage described. Moreover, the damage impaired the safety and seaworthiness of the ship. We thus find that the costs for the repairs is remissible under 19 U.S.C. 1466(d)(1).

HOLDING:

The damage to the ship was a direct result of the weather conditions encountered by the ship, and the damage to the ship impaired its safety and seaworthiness. We thus find that the cost for repairs is remissible under 19 U.S.C. 1466(d)(1).

Sincerely,

B. James Fritz
Chief

Previous Ruling Next Ruling