HQ 0113011 - Vessel Repair Entry No. VR-C18-0020249-6; Cleaning; S/L EXPEDITION; V-67; 19 U.S.C. 1466 - 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 > 1994 HQ Rulings > HQ 0112926 - HQ 0113057 > HQ 0113011

HQ 113011

April 19, 1994

VES-13-18-CO:R:IT:C 113011 GEV

CATEGORY: CARRIER

Regional Director
Commercial Operations Division
U.S. Customs Service
423 Canal Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-2341

RE: Vessel Repair Entry No. VR-C18-0020249-6; Cleaning; S/L EXPEDITION; V-67; 19 U.S.C. 1466

Dear Sir:

This is in response to your memorandum dated January 21, 1994, forwarding a petition for review covering the above-referenced vessel repair entry. Our findings are set forth below.

FACTS:

The S/L EXPEDITION is a U.S.-flag vessel owned and operated by Sea-Land Service, Inc. The subject vessel underwent foreign repairs in the Dominican Republic during May of 1993. Subsequent to the completion of these repairs the vessel arrived in the United States at Jacksonville, Florida, on May 13, 1993. A vessel repair entry was filed on the date of arrival.

An application for relief from duties assessed pursuant to the vessel repair statute was submitted to the New Orleans VRLU. The application was granted in part and denied in part. A petition for review of the decision of the New Orleans VRLU was submitted.

At issue is the cost of cleaning (i.e., sweeping) the decks of the vessel listed on Cleaner Maintenance Shipping, S.A. invoice no. 560. The New Orleans VRLU held this cost dutiable based on their finding that it was in preparation for painting (listed on Cleaner Maintenance Shipping, S.A. invoice no. 561) which is dutiable under the vessel repair statute. The petitioner contends that the sweeping in question was not associated with the aforementioned painting and therefore is non-dutiable.

ISSUE:

Whether the evidence presented is sufficient to support a finding that the cleaning in question was in preparation of painting so as to render such cleaning costs dutiable under 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 of 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 regard to painting costs, Customs has long-held, and the petitioner does not dispute, that such costs are dutiable under the vessel repair statute. (See T.D.s 43322, 48377 and 49531) In addition, Customs has long-held, and petitioner does not dispute, that cleaning operations in preparation for painting are dutiable as an integral part of the painting. (See C.I.E. 820/60 and T.D. 49531)

Upon reviewing the documentation covering the cleaning at issue, we note that the vessel repair entry (CF 226) prepared by the petitioner states, in part, "SWEEPING DECKS FROM WHEELHOUSE TO MAIN DECK,...SWEEP UNDER CATWALKS." It further provides, "PAINT OUT PRIMER SPOTS ON WHEELHOUSE...PAINTED DECKS AT NO. 7 HATCH, PAINTED ROSE BOX AT NO. 9 HATCH." The application for relief, dated July 9, 1993, states, in part, "SWEPT DOWN MAIN DECKS," and "PRIMED SPOTS ON THE WHEELHOUSE, DECK AT #7 HATCH, AND BEAMS AND ROSE BOX AT #9 HATCH." The Cleaner Maintenance Shipping, S.A. invoice no. 560 states, in part, "SWEEPING DECKS FROM WHEELHOUSE TO MAIN DECK...SWEEP UNDER CATWALKS." The Cleaner Maintenance Shipping, S.A. invoice no. 561 states, "PAINTING SPOTS ON WEELHOUSE [sic]. PAINTING FLOOR AT #7 HATCH. PAINTING BEAMS AND BOX ROSE AT #9 HATCH."

The petitioner contends that the decks swept were not painted and that the "floor" referred to was inside hatch #7 and inside hatch #9. We do not believe the record supports this claim. While some painting may actually have occurred on the wheelhouse as the petitioner suggests, the evidence discussed above supports the finding that the areas that were painted were swept beforehand. The distinction between the words "floor" and "deck" which is critical to the petitioner's claim cannot be discerned from the evidence presented, particularly the documentation that was previously prepared by the petitioner (i.e., the CF 226 and the application). Accordingly, we find that the cleaning costs in question were in preparation of a dutiable operation (i.e., painting) and therefore are dutiable.

HOLDING:

The evidence presented is sufficient to support a finding that the cleaning in question was in preparation of painting so as to render such costs dutiable under 19 U.S.C. 1466.

Accordingly, the petition is denied.

Sincerely,

Arthur P. Schifflin

Previous Ruling Next Ruling