HQ 0112036 - Vessel Repair; Entry No. 335-0100603-6; SS PRESIDENT JOHNSON V-241; Modification; - 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 0112009 - HQ 0112144 > HQ 0112036

HQ 112036

February 11, 1992

VES-13-18-CO:R:IT:C 112036 GEV

CATEGORY: CARRIER

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

RE: Vessel Repair; Entry No. 335-0100603-6; SS PRESIDENT JOHNSON V-241; Modification;

Dear Sir:

This is in response to your memorandum dated December 9, 1991, transmitting an application for relief from duties assessed pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1466. You ask that we review two (2) items listed in the application. Our findings are set forth below.

FACTS:

The SS PRESIDENT JOHNSON is a U.S.-flag vessel owned by American President Lines, Ltd. of Oakland, California. The subject vessel underwent foreign shipyard work during the period of June - July, 1991. Subsequent to the completion of the work, the vessel arrived in the United States at Seattle, Washington, on August 10, 1991. Formal entry was timely filed on August 15, 1991. Pursuant to an authorized extension of time, an application for relief with supporting documentation was timely filed on November 7, 1991.

The applicant contends that the two items in question (Item 3.3-2, Propeller Net Cutter Installation; and Item 3.3-3, Rudder Side Plates Modification) constitute nondutiable modifications to the subject vessel.

ISSUE:

Whether evidence is presented sufficient to prove that the foreign work performed on the subject vessel for which the applicant seeks relief constitutes a modification so as to render the work nondutiable 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.

In its application of the vessel repair statute, Customs has held that modifications to the hull and fittings of a vessel are not subject to vessel repair duties. Over the course of years, the identification of modification processes has evolved from judicial and administrative precedent. In considering whether an operation has resulted in a modification which is not subject to duty, the following elements may be considered.

1. Whether there is a permanent incorporation into the hull or superstructure of a vessel (see United States v. Admiral Oriental Line et al., T.D. 44359 (1930)), either in a structural sense or as demonstrated by the means of attachment so as to be indicative of the intent to be permanently incorporated. This element should not be given undue weight in view of the fact that vessel components must be welded or otherwise "permanently attached" to the ship as a result of constant pitching and rolling. In addition, some items, the cost of which is clearly dutiable, interact with other vessel components resulting in the need, possibly for that purpose alone, for a fixed and stable juxtaposition of vessel parts. It follows that a "permanent attachment" takes place that does not necessarily involve a modification to the hull and fittings.

2. Whether in all likelihood, an item under consideration would remain aboard a vessel during an extended lay up.

3. Whether, if not a first time installation, an item under consideration replaces a current part, fitting or structure which is not in good working order.

4. Whether an item under consideration provides an improvement or enhancement in operation or efficiency of the vessel

Very often when considering whether an addition to the hull and fittings took place for the purpose of 19 U.S.C. 1466, we have considered the question from the standpoint of whether the work involved the purchase of "equipment" for the vessel. It is not possible to compile a complete list of items that might be aboard a ship that constitute its "equipment". An unavoidable problem in that regard stems from the fact that vessels differ as to their services. What is required equipment on a large passenger vessel might not be required on a fish processing vessel or offshore rig.

"Dutiable equipment" has been defined to include:

...portable articles necessary or appropriate for the navigation, operation, or maintenance of a vessel, but not permanently incorporated in or permanently attached to its hull or propelling machinery, and not constituting consumable supplies. Admiral Oriental, supra., (quoting T.D. 34150, (1914))

By defining what articles are considered to be equipment, the Court attempted to formulate criteria to distinguish non- dutiable items which are part of the hull and fittings of a vessel from dutiable equipment, as defined above. These items might be considered to include:

...those appliances which are permanently attached to the vessel, and which would remain on board were the vessel to be laid up for a long period... Admiral Oriental, supra., (quoting 27 Op. Atty. Gen. 228).

A more contemporary working definition might be that which is used under certain circumstances by the Coast Guard; it includes a system, accessory, component or appurtenance of a vessel. This would include navigational, radio, safety and, ordinarily, propulsion machinery.

Upon reviewing the record with regard to this particular work, we note that both items appear on pp. 111-113 of Hongkong United Dockyards Ltd. invoice no. 0011/09, dated July 11, 1991, under the heading, "NON STANDARD HULL AND UNDERWATER REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE." The invoice descriptions for both items further evidence repair work rather than modifications. Accordingly, Items 3.3-2 and 3.3-3 are dutiable.

HOLDING:

Evidence is not presented sufficient to prove that the foreign work performed on the subject vessel for which the applicant seeks relief constitutes a modification so as to render the work nondutiable under 19 U.S.C. 1466.

Sincerely,

B. James Fritz

Previous Ruling Next Ruling