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 > 1995 HQ Rulings > HQ 086011 - HQ 112849 > HQ 111543

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 111543




March 15, 1995

VES-13-18-CO:R:IT:C 111543 GEV

CATEGORY: CARRIER

Deputy Regional Director
Commercial Operations
Pacific Region
1 World Trade Center
Long Beach, California 90831

RE: Vessel Repair Entry No. 110-0103983-0; SEA-LAND EXPRESS; V-141/143; 19 U.S.C. ? 1466

Dear Sir:

This is in response to a memorandum from the Chief, Technical Branch, Commercial Operations Division, dated February 5, 1991, forwarding a petition for review of Headquarters ruling no. 111227. Our findings on this matter are set forth below.

FACTS:

The SEA-LAND EXPRESS is a U.S.-flag vessel owned and operated by Sea-Land Service, Inc. ("Sea-Land"). The subject vessel had foreign shipyard work performed on her in Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore in January and February of 1990. The vessel arrived in the United States at the port of Tacoma, Washington on February 12, 1990. A vessel repair entry was filed on February 20, 1990.

Pursuant to an authorized extension of time, an application for relief was timely filed although supporting documentation, including the shipyard invoice, was not. Headquarters ruling no. 111227, dated October 10, 1990 held that the application for relief should be denied in the absence of timely filed supporting documentation. The Chief, Technical Branch, Commercial Operations, in a letter dated October 31, 1990, so informed Sea-Land of Customs decision in this matter by enclosing a copy of ruling no. 111227. In addition, the letter informed Sea-Land of their right to file a petition for review of Customs decision under ? 4.14(d)(2), Customs Regulations.

In response to Customs letter of October 31, 1990, a letter from Sea-Land was received by Customs on November 30, 1990. Sea-Land requests that this letter be considered a timely petition for review pursuant to ? 4.14(d)(2), Customs Regulations, so that the subject vessel repair entry may be reconsidered in light of Sea-Land's supporting documentation and claims for relief .

ISSUE:

Whether the letter from Sea-Land received by Customs on November 30, 1990, is considered to be a timely petition for review pursuant to ? 4.14(d)(2), Customs Regulations.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Title 19, United States Code, ? 1466 (19 U.S.C. ? 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.

The Customs Regulations promulgated pursuant to 19 U.S.C. ? 1466 are set forth in title 19, Code of Federal Regulations, ? 4.14 (19 CFR ? 4.14). Specifically, ? 4.14(d)(2), Customs Regulations, provides, in pertinent part, that if an applicant is dissatisfied with the decision on its application for relief, the applicant may file a petition for review of that decision. Section 4.14(d)(2)(ii) provides that a petition for review may be "...filed with the appropriate vessel repair liquidation unit within 30 days after the date of the written notice to the party of the decision on the application for relief..." It is readily apparent that Sea-Land's letter received by Customs on November 30, 1990, meets this criterion. Accordingly, the letter will be considered as a timely petition for relief pursuant to ? 4.14(d)(2), Customs Regulations, and the merits thereof will be considered in light of the entire record (i.e., all supporting documentation Customs has received regarding this entry).

HOLDING:

The letter from Sea-Land received by Customs on November 30, 1990, is considered to be a timely petition for review pursuant to ? 4.14(d)(2), Customs Regulations so that Sea-Land's claims for relief stated therein and the accompanying documentation may be considered on their merits.

Sincerely,

Arthur P. Schifflin

Previous Ruling Next Ruling