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 0111771

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

---

HQ 111771

December 17, 1991

VES-13-18-CO:R:IT:C 111771 LLB

CATEGORY: CARRIER

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

RE: Vessel repair; Maritime Administration vessel; Vessel CAPE DOUGLAS, V-01; Vessel repair entry H19-0901228-8

Dear Sir:

Reference is made to your memorandum of June 18, 1991, which forwards for our consideration the Application for Relief from the assessment of vessel repair duties filed by Marine Transport Lines, Inc., in regard to the above-captioned vessel repair entry.

FACTS:

The applicant operates the CAPE DOUGLAS on behalf of the vessel owner, the Maritime Administration of the United States Department of Transportation, and filed a vessel repair entry upon first arrival in the United States at the port of Honolulu, Hawaii. Repairs had been performed while the vessel was in Ad Dammam, Saudi Arabia, and in Singapore. The filing of the Application for Relief was done as a formality, since the Customs Service and the Maritime Administration have entered into agreement that the latter is to be billed for any vessel repair duties owed for repairs to vessels which it owns and which are operated by contract parties.

ISSUE:

Whether any evidence is provided which will permit remission or refund of vessel repair duties assessed upon arrival of the vessel CAPE DOUGLAS.

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.

There is no claim for relief made in this case. In fact, the applicant states, "There was no stress of weather or casualty requiring the repairs and/or purchases. The repairs were necessitated by old tired equipment merely wearing itself out of service unexpectedly." In light of this fact, there is no relief warranted.

HOLDING:

After full review of the facts and law, we conclude that no relief from the assessment of vessel repair duty is warranted in this case.

Sincerely,

B. James Fritz

Previous Ruling Next Ruling