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 113298 - HQ 113511 > HQ 113318

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 113318

---

March 14, 1995

VES-13-18-CO:R:IT:C 113318 GOB

CATEGORY: CARRIER

Deputy Regional Director of Customs
Commercial Operations
Pacific Region
One World Trade Center
Long Beach, California 90831-0700

RE: Vessel Repair Entry No. 110-6461582-3; 19 U.S.C. 1466; PRESIDENT HOOVER, V-146; Petition

Dear Sir:

This is in response to your memorandum dated January 10, 1995, which forwarded the petition submitted by American President Lines, Ltd. ("petitioner") with respect to the above-referenced vessel repair entry.

FACTS:

The record reflects that the PRESIDENT HOOVER ("the vessel") arrived at the port of Seattle, Washington on July 6, 1994 and filed the subject vessel repair entry.

By Ruling 113261 dated November 2, 1994, the application for relief with respect to this entry was granted in part and denied in part.

Our determination is requested with respect to the following items.

Item No. Description

2.1-1 diver - inspection of hull
3.1-01 hull high pressure water wash
Inv. 0010A/07-94 service charge
4 on CF 226 slops

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.

After a consideration of the record, we make the following determinations.

The cost of item 2.1-1 (diver - inspection of hull) and the travel costs associated with the service charge (Inv. 0010A/07-94) are not dutiable.

The cost of the item 3.1-01 (hull high pressure water wash) is dutiable because the record indicates that it is incident to dutiable repairs and/or a maintenance item.

With respect to the slops or sludge removal (item four on CF 226), the petitioner states:

[A] non-dutiable repair in Seattle, Washington ultimately generated approximately 2,000 barrel of contaminated salt water slops. These slops were disposed of in Hong Kong...

We believe that the disposal of slops generated by a "non-dutiable" repair in Seattle, Washington is non-dutiable and is not pursuant to dutiable repairs.

We determine that the cost of the slops removal is not dutiable pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1466.

HOLDING:

As detailed supra, the petition is granted in part and denied in part.

Sincerely,

Harvey B. Fox
Director
Office of Regulations and Rulings

Previous Ruling Next Ruling