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 0111117 - HQ 0111331 > HQ 0111258

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

---

HQ 111258

May 30, 1991

VES-13-18-CO:R:IT:C 111258 KVS

CATEGORY: CARRIER

Chief
Residual Liquidation and Protest Branch
6 World Trade Center
New York, NY 10048-0954

RE: LASH barge; 19 U.S.C. 1466(h); retroactive effect on pending protests; rubpad installation; cleaning Vessel: SAM HOUSTON V-47
Vessel Repair Entry No. 514-3002866-5
Protest No. 1001-0-001952
Date of Arrival: April 16, 1987
Port of Arrival: New York, New York

Dear Sir:

This is in response to your memorandum dated August 2, 1990, which transmits for our consideration protest no. 1001-0-001952, filed in connection with the SAM HOUSTON, vessel repair entry no. 514-3002866-5. Our findings are set forth below.

FACTS:

The SAM HOUSTON, a Lighter Aboard Ship (LASH) barge mother vessel, arrived in the United States at New York, New York, on April 16, 1987, with a complement of LASH barges which had undergone various shipyard operations while abroad. The vessel made formal entry on April 21, 1987.

An application for relief was timely filed on May 14, 1987, and was denied in part by Customs Letter Ruling 110021, dated May 10, 1989. A petition for review was timely filed on June 14, 1989. This petition was denied pursuant to Customs Letter Ruling 110369, dated November 13, 1989, and, accordingly, was liquidated on December 22, 1989.

The protest currently under consideration was timely filed on March 5, 1990, and seeks relief from duty levied on the costs incurred by the subject vessel for the installation of rubpads and cleaning.

ISSUE:

Whether the cost of cleaning and rubpad installation carried out aboard the subject LASH barge is dutiable pursuant to 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 engaged, intended to engage, or documented under the laws of the United States to engage in the foreign or coastwise trade.

Section 1466 was amended by the Act of August 20, 1990 (Pub. L. 101-382), whereby a new paragraph (h)(1) was added which exempts from duty under section 1466(a), the cost of parts, materials, equipment, and repairs made abroad to U.S.-documented LASH barges used as cargo containers. The effective date of the amendment is stated as follows:

Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply to--

(1) any entry made before the date of enactment of this Act that is not liquidated on the date of enactment of this Act, and

(2) any entry made--
(A) on or after the date of enactment of this Act, and
(B) on or before December 31, 1992.

In the case currently before us, the entry in question was liquidated on December 22, 1989, before the date of enactment on August 20, 1990, and thus, would appear to fall outside the purview of the amendment.

However, Customs Letter Ruling 111474 GEV (dated March 6, 1991), discussed the retroactive impact of the new amendment to those cases in which a protest was pending on the date of enactment of the new legislation. Upon examining the applicable legislative history of the amendment, as well as reviewing various court decisions and other statutory use of the term "liquidated," we held that:

For purposes of the retroactive impact of new section 1466(h), the benefits of said legislation will inure to those entries which were not finally liquidated (i.e., for which
a timely protest was filed or court action initiated) on or before August 20, 1990.

Accordingly, since the protest under consideration had been timely filed on or before the date of the amendment's enactment (August 20, 1990), the entry had not been "finally liquidated" and would thus be entitled to any benefit extended by the legislation.

However, the statutory exemption for the cost of equipment and repairs extends only to those LASH barges documented under the laws of the United States and utilized as cargo containers. Therefore, we suggest that the vessel owner be notified of the need for additional information. Upon receipt of a certificate of documentation and a certification as to the vessel's use, the protest should be granted.

HOLDING:

The cost of rubpad installation and cleaning carried out aboard the subject LASH barge is not dutiable pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1466(h).

Sincerely,

B. James Fritz

Previous Ruling Next Ruling