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 0111694 - HQ 0111792 > HQ 0111749

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

---

HQ 111749

October 25, 1991

VES-13-18-CO:R:IT:C 111749 GEV

CATEGORY: CARRIER

Chief, Technical Branch
Commercial Operations
Pacific Region
One World Trade Center
Long Beach, California 90731

RE: Protest No. 310791-100001; TT BROOKLYN

Dear Sir:

Your memorandum dated June 5, 1991, forwarded a protest regarding vessel repair entry no. C31-0005010-4. Our findings are set forth below.

FACTS:

The TT BROOKLYN is a U.S.-flag vessel owned by Texaco Marine Services, Inc. ("Texaco") of Port Arthur, Texas. The subject vessel underwent foreign shipyard work at Hyundai Mipo Dockyard Co. in Ulsan, Korea, during the period of August-October, 1988. Subsequent to the completion of the work the subject vessel arrived in the United States at Valdez, Alaska, on November 4, 1988. A vessel repair entry was filed on the date of arrival.

Pursuant to an authorized extension of time, an application for relief, dated January 26, 1989, was timely filed. By ruling letter 110434, dated November 30, 1989, Customs ruled on the application. Counsel for Texaco, by letter dated January 25, 1990, filed a petition for relief from duties assessed pursuant to the decision on the application. In ruling letter 110899, dated December 5, 1990, Customs ruled on the petition for relief. The entry was subsequently forwarded for liquidation which took place on February 8, 1991. The ensuing protest was filed on February 21, 1991.

At issue is the dutiability under 19 U.S.C. 1466 of various parts claimed to be manufactured and purchased in the United States and installed foreign on the subject vessel. Customs determined at both the application and petition stages that the evidence submitted was insufficient to prove U.S. manufacture and purchase of these particular items. The protestant takes
exception to this determination and has offered additional evidence in the form of letters from the vendors/manufactures of the respective parts under consideration that they were in fact manufactured and purchased in the United States (see Exhibits

ISSUE:

Whether evidence has been presented sufficient to prove various parts installed foreign were manufactured and purchased in the United States so as to warrant remission under 19 U.S.C 1466.

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.

Upon reviewing the additional evidence submitted (i.e., letters from the vendors/manufacturers of the parts in question) it is apparent that the parts were U.S.- manufactured and purchased. Accordingly, remission of duties assessed thereon is granted.

HOLDING:

Evidence is presented sufficient to prove that the various parts under consideration installed foreign were manufactured and purchased in the United States. Remission under 19 U.S.C. 1466 is therefore warranted.

Accordingly, the protest is granted.

Sincerely,

B. James Fritz

Previous Ruling Next Ruling