HQ 0110907 - Vessel: VALUE V-1 - United States International Trade Commision Rulings

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 0110899 - HQ 0111107 > HQ 0110907

HQ 110907

June 19, 1990

VES-13-18-CO:R:P:C 110907 KVS

CATEGORY: CARRIER

Chief, Residual Liquidation and Protest Branch 6 World Trade Center
New York, New York 10048

RE: Vessel: VALUE V-1
Date of Arrival: June 21, 1988
Port of Arrival: New York
Vessel Repair Entry No. 514-3003399-6

Dear Sir:

This is in response to your memorandum of March 5, 1990, which transmits for our consideration an application for relief from vessel repair duties file in connection with the VALUE V-1, vessel repair entry no. 514-3003399-6. Our findings are set forth below.

FACTS:

The VALUE, owned by Sea-Land Service, Inc., underwent various shipyard operations at several foreign shipyards in May- June 1988. The vessel arrived in the United States at New York on June 21, 1988, and made timely entry. The application for relief currently under consideration was filed on September 19, 1988.

ISSUE:

Whether an application for relief from vessel repair duties that is submitted 90 days after the date of arrival is untimely so as to preclude consideration on its merits.

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.

The Customs Regulations provide specific time limitations for the submission of an application for relief of vessel repair duties. This time period is contained in section 4.14(d)(1)(ii), which states:

The application for relief, with supporting evidence, shall be filed within 60 days from the date of first arrival of the vessel.
However, if good cause is shown, the appropriate vessel repair unit may authorize one 30-day extension of time to file beyond the 60-day filing period.

Furthermore, the regulations specify that the time period for filing the application for relief is concurrent with the time period for submission of costs. Section 4.14(b)(2)(ii)(B) states:

The 60-day time period to submit evidence of cost on the entry is concurrent with the 60- day time period to submit an application for relief under paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section and will not operate to provide additional time to submit an application for relief. A request for additional time to submit evidence of cost may include a request for additional time to submit an application for relief.

This additional time to submit evidence of cost and an application for relief is found in section 4.14(b)(2)(ii), Customs Regulations:

If before the end of the 60-day period, the party that is required to furnish the evidence of cost submits a written request for an extension of time beyond the 60-day period, together with a satisfactory explanation of the delay, to the appropriate vessel liquidation unit, that unit may grant an additional 30-day extension of time to submit cost evidence. Any request for a further extension of time to furnish evidence of cost shall be submitted to Headquarters, U.S. Customs Service...for approval.

In the case under consideration, the VALUE arrived at New York on June 21, 1988. Under the regulations, the vessel had until August 20, 1988 to submit an application for relief and
cost evidence. However, the application for relief was not filed until September 19, 1988.

Although the regulations provide for the granting of a 30- day extension upon application to the appropriate vessel liquidation unit, we find no record that an extension was either requested or granted.

HOLDING:

An application for relief from vessel repair duties filed 90 days after the date of the vessel's arrival is untimely so as to preclude consideration on its merits when no request for an extension of time to file is made.

Sincerely,

B. James Fritz

Previous Ruling Next Ruling