VES-13-18-RR:IT:EC 113521 LLB
Chief, Residual Liquidation and Protest Branch
U.S. Customs Service
6 World Trade Center
New York, New York 10048
RE: Vessel repair; Defective Application for Relief; Vessel
SEALAND VALUE, V-359; Vessel repair entry number 514-3004971-1; Port of arrival Elizabeth, New Jersey
Dear Sir:
Reference is made to your memorandum of August 4, 1995,
which forwards for our review and consideration documentation
seeking relief from the assessment of vessel repair duties filed
by Sea-Land Service, Inc., in regard to the above-captioned
vessel repair entry.
FACTS:
The vessel SEALAND VALUE underwent extensive shipyard
operations while outside of the United States. A vessel repair
entry was filed on the day of arrival. We are asked to review
some of the operations performed in the foreign shipyard for the
purpose of determining their dutiability. 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.
ISSUE:
Whether sufficient evidence has been submitted which will
allow thorough consideration of the dutiability aspects of the
subject foreign shipyard operations involved in this matter.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Title 19, United States Code, section 1466(a), 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 the foreign or
coastwise trade, or vessels intended to be employed in such
trade.
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.
None of these allegations appear in the submitted documentation.
The requirements appearing in the regulations carry the force and
effect of law, having been promulgated pursuant to the specific
authority conferred by statute (19 U.S.C. 1466 and 1498(a)(10)).
HOLDING:
Following review of the evidence submitted and an analysis
of the applicable law and precedents, we have determined that, as
a matter of law, relief cannot be granted for the reasons set
forth in the Law and Analysis section of this ruling. This entry
should be liquidated and the vessel operator should be informed
of the right to file a protest of the liquidation under 19 U.S.C.
1514 and 19 CFR Part 174. We have reached this same conclusion
in previous rulings concerning Sea-Land vessel repair entries
(Ruling Letters 111714 and 111746, both issued January 22, 1992).
Sincerely,
William G. Rosoff
Chief
Entry and Carrier Rulings Branch