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 112865 - HQ 113296 > HQ 113221

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 113221

---

November 2, 1994

VES-13-18-CO:R:IT:C 113221 GOB

CATEGORY: CARRIER

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

RE: Vessel Repair; 19 U.S.C. 1466; PRESIDENT JEFFERSON, V-303; Entry No. 110-6461504-7

Dear Sir:

This is in response to your memorandum dated August 31, 1994 which forwarded the application for relief submitted by American President Lines, Ltd. ("applicant") in connection with the above- referenced entry.

FACTS:

The record reflects that the PRESIDENT JEFFERSON (the "vessel") arrived at the port of Seattle, Washington on March 8, 1994 (voyage 303). The above-referenced vessel repair entry was filed on March 15, 1994.

You request our determination with respect to the following items:

Invoice No. Item

2703 insurance and security
2704 propeller removal 2704 stern seal assembly 2705 tailshaft magnaflux test p. 4 CF 226 survey

ISSUE:

Whether the subject items are dutiable pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1466.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

19 U.S.C. 1466 provides for the payment of duty at a rate of fifty 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 be employed in such trade.

Insurance and Security

We find that the insurance cost is dutiable as a cost directly related to repairs.

We find that the cost of security is nondutiable because it appears to be essentially a fire watch service which we have previously held to be nondutiable as a drydocking cost.

Propeller Removal and Stern Seal Assembly

The applicant claims that the costs of these items are not dutiable because the vendor repaired these items on a previous voyage (voyage 299) and the earlier repairs failed. The applicant indicates that the work on the subject voyage is covered by a warranty provided by the vendor. However, the application also states that "[t]he payment of this invoice is in dispute."

We find that the costs of these items are dutiable as repairs. The only warranty repairs which are potentially nondutiable under 19 U.S.C. 1466 are warranty items for new construction.

Tailshaft Magnaflux Test

We find that this item is nondutiable because the record indicates that repairs were not associated with this test.

Survey

We find that the survey listed as item 11 on the CF 226 is dutiable because it is directly related to dutiable repairs.

HOLDING:

As detailed supra, the application is granted with respect to the security cost and the tailshaft magnaflux test and is denied with respect to the other items.

Sincerely,

Arthur P. Schifflin
Chief

Previous Ruling Next Ruling