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 > 1992 HQ Rulings > HQ 0110294 - HQ 0110727 > HQ 0110639

Previous Ruling Next Ruling



HQ 110639


June 1, 1990

VES-13-18-CO:R:P:C 110639 KVS

CATEGORY: CARRIER

Chief, Technical Branch
Commercial Operations Division
1 World Trade Center
Suite 705
Long Beach, CA 90831

RE: Vessel repair; modification; inspection Protest No. 312689-000016
Vessel: ARCO SPIRIT V-CF48
Date of Arrival: August 20, 1988
Port of Arrival: Valdez, Alaska
Vessel Repair Entry No. C31-0005008-8

Dear Sir:

This is in response to your memorandum of October 31, 1989, which forwarded for our consideration protest no. 312689-000016, filed in connection with the ARCO SPIRIT, vessel repair entry no. C31-0005008-8. Our findings are set forth below.

FACTS:

The ARCO SPIRIT, owned by ARCO Marine, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "protestant"), underwent shipyard operations in Korea from July 24, 1988 to August 10, 1988. The vessel arrived in the United States at Valdez, Alaska on August 20, 1988 and made timely entry. The protestant filed an application dated October 14, 1988. Our letter of July 31, 1989 denied the application as deficient and the entry was liquidated on August 16, 1989.

The protest currently under consideration was timely filed on September 20, 1989.

ISSUE:

Whether the foreign shipyard work undertaken on the subject vessel is subject to duty under the vessel repair statute, 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.

In its application of 19 U.S.C. 1466, Customs has held that modifications/alterations/additions to the hull and fittings of a vessel are not subject to vessel repair duties. Customs has held that for an item to be characterized as a nondutiable modification, it must encompass the installation of an item as a new design feature, not as a replacement for, or restoration of, parts now performing a similar function. Customs Memorandum 108871 (4-16-87). Customs has also held that the decision in each case as to whether an installation constitutes a nondutiable addition to the hull and fittings of the vessel depends to a great extent on the detail and accuracy of the drawings and invoice descriptions of the actual work performed. Customs Memorandum 108871 (4-16-87), citing C.S.D. 83-35. Even if an article is considered to be part of the hull and fittings of a vessel, the repair of that article, or the replacement of a worn part of the hull and fittings, is subject to vessel repair duties. See, C.I.E. 233/60.

After thorough analysis of the documents submitted, we find the following items to be non-dutiable:

Item 108 Rudder stock modification

Item 108-2 X-Ray

Item 304-2 Main/stand-by generator modification

Item 305 Circulation water sea valves modification

Item 307 Main condenser vent modification (installation) coating

Item 319 Main condenser level control modification

Item 320 Boiler fuel piping modification

Item 321 Fuel oil treatment modification
(installation)

Item 810 Dirty ballast part flow system installation

Item 812 No. 7 Port and starboard cargo tank sounding tubes installation

Item 819 Cargo pump discharge pipe installation

Item 821 P/S gallows stand pipe modification

Item 825 Cargo manifold drain modification

Item 826 Cargo pump temperature alarms modification

Item 902 I.G.S. modifications and removals

Item 303 is a main turbine throttle valve inspection. The shipyard invoice indicates that the work involved labor and material to "check, operate and lubricate all main turbine throttle valves". The fact that all of the valves were lubricated as well as inspected indicates that this task was more a maintenance function than part of a classification survey. Accordingly, the cost of the inspection is dutiable.

HOLDING:

Following a thorough review of the evidence provided, and as detailed in the "Law and Analysis" section of this ruling, we resommend that the protest be granted in part and denied in part.

Sincerely,

B. James Fritz

Previous Ruling Next Ruling