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 > 2003 HQ Rulings > HQ 115170 - HQ 116013 > HQ 115968

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 115968

---

April 21, 2003

VES-13-18:R:IT:EC 115968 TLS

CATEGORY: CARRIER

Chief, Liquidation Branch
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
P.O. Box 2450
San Francisco, California 94126

RE: Vessel Repair Entry No. C30-0109419-3; DISCOVERY; V-225; 19 U.S.C. §1466; Protest No. 3001-01-100466.

Dear Sir:

This is in response to your memorandum of April 8, 2003, forwarding the above-captioned protest filed by CSX Lines, LLC. Our determination is provided in this ruling.

FACTS:

The American-flag vessel DISCOVERY arrived at the Port of Tacoma, Washington on December 25, 2000, and submitted a vessel repair entry detailing shipyard operations in Singapore. An Application for Relief from the assessment of vessel repair duty was submitted by the operator and was considered by your office. With a letter dated May 8, 2001, your office enclosed a copy of the relevant Customs Form 226 showing a total amount of duties owed upon liquidation of the entry as $388,347. The entry was liquidated on June 8, 2001. CSX Lines submitted the subject protest on November 27, 2001. The protest seeks relief from the aforementioned duties.

ISSUES:

1) Whether the protest is timely filed.

2) Whether the costs in question that were incurred by the DISCOVERY while in Singapore constitute general port services that should be considered non-dutiable in accordance with prior Customs Headquarters rulings.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Before we consider the substantive merits of the protest, we must focus on the timeliness of the protest filing. Under 19 CFR 174.12(e)(2), a protest must be filed within 90 days after the date of notice of liquidation. According to your records, the date of liquidation in this case is June 8, 2001. The Seattle Customs office has informed us that no extension to file was issued in this case.

Given that the protest was filed more than 90 days after the date of liquidation and no extension to file was granted in this case, we find that the subject protest is untimely filed contrary to 19 CFR 174.12(e)(2). As such, there is no need to consider the merits of CSX Lines’ arguments.

HOLDING:

We have determined that the subject protest is untimely filed. Therefore, the protest is hereby denied for the reasons stated above.

Sincerely,

Glen Vereb
Chief

Previous Ruling Next Ruling