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 > 1994 HQ Rulings > HQ 0112926 - HQ 0113057 > HQ 0112936

Previous Ruling Next Ruling



HQ 112936


Februaru 2, 1994

VES-13-18-CO:R:IT:C 112936 GEV

CATEGORY: CARRIER

Deputy Assistant Regional Commissioner
Commercial Operations
ATTN: Regional Vessel Repair Liquidation Unit New York, New York 10048-0945

RE: Vessel Repair Entry No. 514-3004613-9; M/V RALEIGH BAY; V-040; Modifications; U.S. Parts; 19 U.S.C. 1466

Dear Sir:

This is in response to your memorandum dated October 22, 1993, transmitting an application for relief from duties assessed pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1466. Our findings on this matter are set forth below.

FACTS:

The M/V RALEIGH BAY is a U.S.-flag vessel owned and operated by Sea-Land Service, Inc. ("Sea-Land"). The subject vessel had foreign shipyard work performed during October of 1991. Subsequent to the completion of the work the vessel arrived in the United States at Elizabeth, New Jersey on November 8, 1991. A vessel repair entry covering the work in question was made on November 12, 1991.

Pursuant to an authorized extension of time, an application for relief with supporting documentation was filed on February 6, 1992. Among the items for which the applicant seeks relief are work alleged to be modifications to the vessel's container capacity, foremast and navigation lights. In addition, the applicant seeks relief for various vessel parts alleged to be either manufactured in the United States or imported into the United States, duty paid.

ISSUE:

Whether the costs for which the applicant seeks relief are dutiable pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1466.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Title 19, United States Code, 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 the 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 often be welded or otherwise "permanently attached" to the ship because ships are subject to constant pitching and rolling. In addition, some items, the cost of which is clearly dutiable, operate with other vessel components, resulting in the need, possibly for that purpose alone, for a fixed and stable attachment to those vessel parts. It follows that a "permanent attachment" may take 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.

Item 11 of the application references Fincantieri invoice no. 15050590 which states, "001) 20' Capacity increase modification works carried out as per your specification and drawings." Referenced in the application under this item are Attachments B (Specifications for Modifications) and E (a copy of a letter from Sea-Land requesting an advisory ruling prior to the actual work, Specifications for Modifications, and drawings of the work in question).

Accordingly, upon reviewing the record in its entirety with respect to Item 11, we find it to constitute a non-dutiable modification and therefore free of duty.

Items 19A and 19B of the application reference documentation from a Mr. Antonio Spicuzza purportedly covering his charges for supervising the modification of hatch #8 for 20 foot containers, and the modification of the navigation lights, respectively. The documentation does not, however, specify the service he performed (it merely references his "attendance"), is not corroborated by the remaining documentation, and merely lists various costs for - 4 -
meals, lodging, travel, per diem, report preparation, photocopying, film development and mail. Accordingly, absent further evidence to the contrary, only those itemized charges for meals, lodging and travel which are covered by an accompanying receipt are non- dutiable.

Item 20 of the application references Fincantieri invoice no. 15050589 which states, "002) Shortening of foremast and modifications to navigation lights carried out as per your specification and drawings." Referenced in the application under this item is Attachment B (Specification for Shortening of Foremast and Modifications to Navigation Lights on the Atlantic Class Vessels).

We note that upon reviewing the aforementioned specifications as they pertain to the work covered in Item 20, Section II of the specifications contains, in addition to the modification work, numerous references to cleaning and refurbishing the navigation lights (see 1.1.2, 1.3.1, and 2.3) which constitutes dutiable work. Accordingly, in view of the fact that Fincantieri invoice no. 15050589 contains no segregation between dutiable and non- dutiable costs, the entire cost of Item 20 is dutiable.

In addition to the above claims, the applicant requests duty- free treatment with respect to various vessel parts pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1466(h) (see Items 8A, 33 - 40 listed on Attachment A). In this regard we note that the Customs and Trade Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-382) which amended 19 U.S.C. 1466, exempts from duty under the statute, the cost of spare repair parts or materials which have been previously imported into the United States as commodities with applicable duty paid under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The amendment specifies that the owner or master must provide a certification that the materials were imported with the intent that they be installed on a cargo vessel documented for and engaged in the foreign or coasting trade.

The certification required by 19 U.S.C. 1466(h)(2) as to the vessel's documentation (foreign or coasting trades) and service, will be made by the master on the vessel repair entry (CF 226) at the time of arrival. The fact of payment of duty under the HTSUS for a particular part must be evidenced as follows. In cases in which the vessel operator or a related party has acted as the importer of foreign materials, or where materials were imported at the request of the vessel operator for later use by the operator, the vessel repair entry will identify the port of entry and the consumption entry number for each part installed on the ship which has not previously been entered on a CF 226. In cases in which the vessel operator has purchased imported materials from a third party in the United States, a bill of sale for the materials shall constitute sufficient proof of prior importation and HTSUS duty payment. This evidence of proof of importation and payment of duty must be presented to escape duty and any other applicable consequences.

In addition, we require certification on the CF 226 or an accompanying document by a person with direct knowledge of the fact that an article was imported for the purpose of either then- existing or intended future installation on a company's vessels. Ordinarily, the vessel's master would not have direct knowledge of that fact, and an agent may also be without such knowledge.

Customs has in the past linked this duty remission provision to the duty assessment provision in subsection (a) of the statute. In the face of argument to the contrary we have held that a two- part test must be met in order for remission of duty to be granted: first, that the article must be of U.S. manufacture; and, second, it must be installed by a U.S.-resident or regular vessel crew labor. The reason for this position is that (d)(2) refers to "such equipments or parts...", etc., without any other logical placement for the word "such" occurring in that subsection. We inferred that "such" articles must refer to those installed under subsection (a), absent any other reasonable predication. The new amendment puts this issue to rest; it is clear that as concerns foreign-made parts imported for consumption and then installed on U.S. vessels abroad, the labor required for their installation is separately dutiable. A part may now be considered exempt from vessel repair duty albeit the foreign cost labor is dutiable.

Uniform treatment will be accorded to parts sent from the United States for use in vessel repairs abroad, regardless of whether they are proven to be produced in the U.S., or have been proven to have been imported and entered for consumption with duty paid. In both cases, the cost of the materials is duty exempt and only the cost of foreign labor necessary to install them is subject to duty. Crew member or U.S.-resident labor continues to be free of duty when warranted.

The effective date of this amendment makes this section applicable to any entry made before the date of enactment of this Act that is not "finally liquidated" (i.e., for which a timely protest was filed or court action initiated) on the date of enactment of this Act, and any entry made--

(A) on or after the date of enactment of this Act [August 20, 1990], and
(B) on or before December 31, 1992.

Since the subject entry was made on November 12, 1991, 1466(h) is applicable to this entry as it relates to spare parts. Furthermore, upon reviewing the record we find the documentation sufficient to support the applicant's claim that Items 8A, 33 - 40 listed on the application for relief are entitled to duty-free treatment pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1466(h).

HOLDING:

The application for relief is granted in part and denied in part as discussed in the Law and Analysis portion of this ruling.

Sincerely,

Arthur P. Schifflin

Previous Ruling Next Ruling