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 > 1999 HQ Rulings > HQ 114248 - HQ 114554 > HQ 114495

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 114495





October 22, 1998

VES-13-18-RR:IT:EC 114495 LLB

CATEGORY: CARRIER

Chief, Liquidation Section
U. S. Customs Service
P. O. Box 2450
San Francisco, California 94126

RE: Vessel Repair; Application for relief; M/V GREEN WAVE, Voyage 86; Entry No.
C30-0062965-0; Casualty; Engine room fire; 19 U.S.C. 1466(d)

Dear Sir:

This letter is in response to your memorandum dated September 25, 1998, which forwarded for our consideration a Petition for Review seeking relief from duties relating to the above-referenced vessel repair entry. Our ruling follows.

FACTS:

The vessel GREEN WAVE had been operating outside of the United States near the Antarctic Continent and the record reflects that while in that location on February 13, 1998, the vessel experienced a disabling explosion and fire in its engine room. The damage was extensive and the ship was adrift and without motive power for a period following the incident until taken in tow by the United States Coast Guard vessel POLAR STAR. The POLAR STAR maintained the tow for approximately 15 days until delivering the GREEN WAVE to Lyttleton, New Zealand, for repairs to the engine room area.

Little in the way of evidence of the casualty was initially submitted to support the vessel repair entry, and the Application for Relief which was submitted by the operator was denied for that reason. Evidence submitted with the current Petition for Review includes extracts from the vessel's engine room and deck logs, American Bureau of Shipping and Salvage Association survey reports, repair invoices, a Coast Guard casualty report (CG 2692), and an engine casualty report.

ISSUE:

Whether sufficient evidence is now presented to sustain a finding that the expenses incurred in a foreign shipyard were necessitated by a casualty occurrence.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Section 466, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (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 foreign or coastwise trade, or vessels intended to engage in such trade.

Paragraph (1), subsection (d) of ?1466 provides that duty may be remitted if good and sufficient evidence is furnished establishing that the vessel was compelled by stress of weather or other casualty to put into a foreign port to make repairs to secure the safety and seaworthiness of the vessel to enable her to reach her port of destination. Thus, it is necessary that in order to qualify for duty remission, the party seeking relief must show both the occurrence of a casualty, and that repair was necessary for safety and seaworthiness.

The term "casualty" as it is used in the statute, has been interpreted as something which, like stress of weather, comes with unexpected force or violence, such as fire, explosion or collision (Dollar Steamship Lines, Inc. v. United States, 5 Cust. Ct. 28-29, C.D. 362 (1940)). In this sense, a "casualty" arises from an identifiable event of some sort. In the absence of evidence of such a casualty, we must consider the repair to have been necessitated by normal wear and tear (ruling letter 105159, September 8, 1983).

In the present matter we find ample evidence to support the claim of casualty and relief from the assessment of vessel repair duties. This finding pertains to all of the casualty-related invoices and survey data forwarded for our review.

HOLDING:

The evidence considered substantiates the occurrence of a bona fide casualty and the petition is granted as specified in the Law and Analysis portion of this ruling letter.

Sincerely,

Jerry Laderberg

Chief

Previous Ruling Next Ruling