VES-13-18-CO:R:IT:C 111749 GEV
Chief, Technical Branch
Commercial Operations
Pacific Region
One World Trade Center
Long Beach, California 90731
RE: Protest No. 310791-100001; TT BROOKLYN
Dear Sir:
Your memorandum dated June 5, 1991, forwarded a protest
regarding vessel repair entry no. C31-0005010-4. Our findings
are set forth below.
FACTS:
The TT BROOKLYN is a U.S.-flag vessel owned by Texaco Marine
Services, Inc. ("Texaco") of Port Arthur, Texas. The subject
vessel underwent foreign shipyard work at Hyundai Mipo Dockyard
Co. in Ulsan, Korea, during the period of August-October, 1988.
Subsequent to the completion of the work the subject vessel
arrived in the United States at Valdez, Alaska, on November 4,
1988. A vessel repair entry was filed on the date of arrival.
Pursuant to an authorized extension of time, an application
for relief, dated January 26, 1989, was timely filed. By ruling
letter 110434, dated November 30, 1989, Customs ruled on the
application. Counsel for Texaco, by letter dated January 25,
1990, filed a petition for relief from duties assessed pursuant
to the decision on the application. In ruling letter 110899,
dated December 5, 1990, Customs ruled on the petition for relief.
The entry was subsequently forwarded for liquidation which took
place on February 8, 1991. The ensuing protest was filed on
February 21, 1991.
At issue is the dutiability under 19 U.S.C. 1466 of various
parts claimed to be manufactured and purchased in the United
States and installed foreign on the subject vessel. Customs
determined at both the application and petition stages that the
evidence submitted was insufficient to prove U.S. manufacture and
purchase of these particular items. The protestant takes
- 2 -
exception to this determination and has offered additional
evidence in the form of letters from the vendors/manufactures of
the respective parts under consideration that they were in fact
manufactured and purchased in the United States (see Exhibits
1(a), 2(b), 3(a), and 4(a)).
ISSUE:
Whether evidence has been presented sufficient to prove
various parts installed foreign were manufactured and purchased
in the United States so as to warrant remission under 19 U.S.C
1466.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Title 19, United States Code, section 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.
Upon reviewing the additional evidence submitted (i.e.,
letters from the vendors/manufacturers of the parts in question)
it is apparent that the parts were U.S.- manufactured and
purchased. Accordingly, remission of duties assessed thereon is
granted.
HOLDING:
Evidence is presented sufficient to prove that the various
parts under consideration installed foreign were manufactured and
purchased in the United States. Remission under 19 U.S.C. 1466
is therefore warranted.
Accordingly, the protest is granted.
Sincerely,
B. James Fritz
Chief
Carrier Rulings Branch