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 > 1998 HQ Rulings > HQ 114071 - HQ 114265 > HQ 114157

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 114157

---

November 28, 1997

VES-13-18-RR:IT:EC 114157 GOB

CATEGORY: CARRIER

Port Director of Customs
Attn.: Vessel Repair Liquidation Unit, Room 415 P.O. Box 2450
San Francisco, CA 94126

RE: Vessel Repair Entry No. H19-0967106-7; MOKU PAHU, V-198; 19 U.S.C. 1466; Application

Dear Madam:

This is in response to your memorandum of October 30, 1997, which forwarded the application for relief submitted by Matson Navigation Company ("applicant") with respect to the above-referenced vessel repair entry.

FACTS:

The evidence of record indicates the following. The MOKU PAHU (the "vessel"), a U.S.-flag vessel owned and operated by Hawaiian Sugar & Transportation, arrived at the port of Honolulu, Hawaii on May 21, 1997. The subject vessel repair entry was subsequently filed. The vessel underwent certain foreign shipyard work in Victoria, Canada.

ISSUE:

Whether sufficient evidence has been submitted which would allow thorough consideration of the dutiability of the foreign shipyard operations involved in the above-referenced entry.

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.

The applicant has submitted a brief letter, spreadsheets, and invoices. The letter does not provide any narrative description or information with respect to the work performed, nor does it provide any specific assertion that specific items are nondutiable and the reason for such assertion. The spreadsheets, which are briefly referenced or described in the letter, contain a dutiable column and a nondutiable column.

In Ruling 113839 dated March 3, 1997, we excerpted Ruling 111714 and stated:

In Ruling 111714 dated January 22, 1992, we stated:

The operator, in seeking relief from the duty provisions of section 466, Tariff Act of
1930, as amended, (19 U.S.C. 1466), filed a one-page cover letter forwarding various invoices and worksheets which reflect proposed dispositions. Although the letter denominates itself an Application for Relief, it does not rise to that level.
...
The regulations governing the submission of evidence and the determination of dutiability of foreign shipyard operations under section 1466 are found in section 4.14, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 4.14). Subsection
(d)(1) of section 4.14 (19 CFR 4.14(d)(1)) provides that while an Application for relief need not be submitted in any particular format, it is necessary that it:

...allege that an item or a repair expense covered by the entry is not subject to duty under paragraph (a) of this section, or that the articles purchased or the repair expenses are within the provisions of paragraph (c) of this section, or that both conditions are present.

Our position in Ruling 111714 has been reiterated in numerous other rulings, e.g., Ruling 111746, Ruling 113521, etc.

Thus, as stated above, for the purpose of the issuance of rulings of this office with respect to applications, petitions, and protests, it is Customs' position that an item must be identified within the text of the application, petition, and/or protest. The mere inclusion of an item on a spreadsheet or worksheet, is not sufficient for this purpose. [End of excerpt from Ruling 113839.]

Accordingly, we determine that relief cannot be granted because a valid application was not submitted.

HOLDING:

As stated above, relief cannot be granted. This entry should be liquidated and the vessel operator should be informed of the right to file a protest of the liquidation.

We have ruled similarly in Rulings 111714, 111746, 113521 and 113525.

Sincerely,

Jerry Laderberg
Chief,
Entry Procedures and Carriers

Previous Ruling Next Ruling