HQ 113749 - Vessel Repair Entry No. C14-0026892-1; GREEN ISLAND; V-11; Parts; - 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 > 1997 HQ Rulings > HQ 112890 - HQ 113749 > HQ 113749

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 113749

July 17, 1996

VES-13-18-RR:IT:EC 113749 GEV

CATEGORY: CARRIER

Chief, Vessel Repair Liquidation Unit
U.S. Customs Service
423 Canal Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130

RE: Vessel Repair Entry No. C14-0026892-1; GREEN ISLAND; V-11; Parts;
T.D. 75-257; 19 U.S.C. ? 1466(h)(2)

Dear Sir:

This is in response to your memorandum dated October 28, 1996, forwarding a petition for review of your decision denying an application for relief from duties assessed pursuant to 19 U.S.C. ? 1466. Our findings are set forth below.

FACTS:

The GREEN ISLAND is a U.S.-flag vessel owned and operated by Waterman Steamship Corporation of New Orleans, Louisiana. During the voyage in question, the petitioner states that various spare parts (Item nos. 6 and 7) were purchased in the United States from domestic vendors and then shipped foreign to be placed on board. The vessel subsequently returned to the United States arriving at Newport News, Virginia, on July 29, 1994. A vessel repair entry was timely filed.

An application for relief, dated October 27, 1994, was also timely filed. The application provided that the "...basis for claiming relief...is that U.S. parts are remissable under section 4.14(c)(3)(ii) of the Customs Regulations." By letter dated April 11, 1995, from the Chief, New Orleans Vessel Repair Liquidation Unit (VRLU), to Waterman Steamship Corporation, the application for relief was denied with respect to Item nos. 6 and 7 in view of the fact that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish that the parts in question were manufactured in the United States. A petition for review of the decision of the VRLU was timely filed by letter dated May 11, 1995. The petitioner "...maintains that a vendor invoice is sufficient proof of
origin when the purchase involves spare parts supplied by domestic vendors." Consequently, the petitioner has submitted what is contended to be the requisite documentation to support his claim for relief.

ISSUE:

Whether evidence has been presented sufficient to prove that the parts for which the petitioner seeks relief are non-dutiable under 19 U.S.C. ? 1466.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Title 19, United States Code, ? 1466(a) (19 U.S.C. ? 1466(a)), provides in pertinent part for the payment of an ad valorem duty of 50 percent of the cost of "...equipments, or any part thereof, including boats, purchased for, or the repair parts or materials to be used, or the expenses of repairs made in a foreign country upon a vessel documented under the laws of the United States..."

The Customs Regulations promulgated pursuant to 19 U.S.C. ? 1466 are found at 19 CFR ? 4.14. Section 4.14(c)(3)(ii), cited as the original basis for relief, provides, in pertinent part, that U.S.-manufactured parts purchased by the vessel owner in the United States and installed with U.S. labor or by members of the vessel's regular crew are subject to remission. (See also 19

Further in regard to Customs administration of duty assessment issues (prior to August 20, 1990) under 19 U.S.C. ? 1466 regarding alleged U.S.-manufactured parts, the provisions of Treasury Decision (T.D.) 75-257 are controlling. That decision provides that when materials of U.S.-manufacture are purchased by the vessel owner in the United States for installation abroad by foreign labor, the labor cost alone is subject to duty under 19 U.S.C. ? 1466. When those same materials are purchased by the owner overseas or purchased in the United States by parties other than the owner, the cost of the materials themselves (even though of U.S.-manufacture) was also subject to vessel repair duty. With respect to claims for relief under T.D. 75-257, it is Customs policy to require direct evidence of U.S. manufacture (e.g., an affidavit by the manufacturer) as well as U.S. purchase (e.g., bill of sale or domestic invoice) for relief to be granted. (Customs ruling letter 111272, dated November 2, 1990)

The climate with regard to parts shipped abroad from the United States for foreign installation was transformed on August 20, 1990, when the President signed Public Law 101-382 which added a new subsection (h) to 19 U.S.C. ? 1466. While this provision applied by its terms only to foreign-made imported parts, there was ample reason to extend its effect to U.S.-made materials as well. To fail to do so would act to discourage the use of U.S.-made materials in effecting foreign repairs since continued linkage of remission provisions of subsection 1466(d)(2) with the assessment provisions of subsection (a) of ? 1466 would obligate operators to pay duty on such materials unless they were installed by crew or resident labor.

Consequently, Customs so extended the duty-free treatment of subsection (h) to U.S.-manufactured parts. (See, e.g., Customs ruling letter 110980, dated April 16, 1991)

We note, however, that the entry in this case was made subsequent to the expiration date of subsection (h) (i.e., December 31, 1992). Although subsection (h) was subsequently reenacted (see Public Law 103-465), the implementing legislation contained no provision regarding retroactive treatment for the subject entry. Consequently, the provisions of T.D. 75-257 control with respect to the petitioner's claims.

In regard to the two items in question, we note the following. The evidence submitted with respect to Item 6 consists solely of a signed statement by Waterman's Fleet Manager. This documentation is insufficient to warrant relief under T.D. 75-257. Accordingly, Item 6 is dutiable.

The evidence submitted with respect to Item 7 includes both a U.S. vendor invoice and certification. This documentation is sufficient to warrant relief under T.D. 75-257. Accordingly, Item 7 is non-dutiable.

HOLDING:

With respect to Item 6, evidence has been presented insufficient to prove that the parts for which the petitioner seeks relief are non-dutiable under 19 U.S.C. ? 1466. In regard to Item 7, evidence has been presented sufficient to prove that the parts for which the petitioner seeks relief are non-dutiable under 19 U.S.C. ? 1466.

Accordingly, the petition is granted in part and denied in part.

Sincerely,

Jerry Laderberg

Previous Ruling Next Ruling