VES-13-18 CO:R:IT:C 112454 GFM
Chief, Technical Branch
Commercial Operations
Pacific Region
1 World Trade Center
Long Beach, CA 90831
RE: Vessel Repair; Modification; Application; Segregation of
Costs; Inspection; Testing; Anchor Chains; Propeller;
Overhead; Survey; Scavenger Air Spaces; 19 U.S.C. 1466;
M/V PRESIDENT MONROE; V-85; Entry No. C27-0061064-8.
Dear Sir:
This letter is in response to your memorandum dated
September 9, 1992, which forwards for our review the application
for relief filed in conjunction with the above-referenced vessel
repair entry.
FACTS:
The vessel PRESIDENT MONROE arrived at the port of Los
Angeles, California, on December 10, 1991, and filed a timely
vessel repair entry. The entry indicates that the vessel
underwent foreign shipyard work at Kaohsiung, Taiwan, Kobe, Japan
and Yokohama, Japan during November of 1991. This application
seeks relief from duty for various inspection, cleaning, repair,
and modification charges incurred during vessel's dockage at said
foreign shipyards.
ISSUE:
Whether the cost of foreign shipyard work completed aboard
the subject vessel is dutiable pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1466.
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.
ITEM 509 BOW THRUSTER SURVEY.....................$ 5,662.00
ITEM 509.1 BOW THRUSTER REPAIRS....................$ 850.00
ITEM 509.2 BOW THRUSTER TUNNEL ANODES..............$ 1,794.00
ITEM 509.3 BOW THRUSTER TUNNEL BAR REMOVAL.........$ 1,450.00
These items represent charges for repairs made to the bow
thrusters. Item 509 contains charges for "opening and closing
the hatch for inspection, refilling of oil, and renewing shaft
seal." Item 509.1 contains charges for "grit blasting and
coating (sic), and painting" of the bow thruster. Item 509.2
contains charges for "renew[ing] anodes on bow thruster tunnel."
Item 509.3 contains charges for "remov[ing] bow thruster tunnel
bars from tunnel entrances, grind[ing] surfaces, welding, and
building-up corroded areas by welding."
It is clear from the descriptions contained in the shipyard
invoice that these bow thruster operations are associated with
dutiable repairs.
With regard to Item 509.3, the applicant claims that this
item constitutes a modification as it is a mere removal which
will enhance the vessel's operation. We disagree. The item
includes charges for the testing of a repair as well as repairs
of areas not associated with the tunnel bars.
With regard to Item 509.2, the replacement of zinc anodes,
it is also well settled that such operations constitute dutiable
repairs pursuant to Bureau Letter DB 212.6 (July 23, 1958) and
Headquarters Ruling Letters 103327, 111883, 112128, and 112180.
Consequently, as the above items clearly constitute dutiable
transactions, we must assume, absent evidence to the contrary,
that the grit blasting in Item 509.1 and the inspections
undertaken in Item 509 were integral parts of the repairs
undertaken and in accordance with long-standing authority they
must be considered dutiable as well.
ITEM 514 PAD EYE INSTALLATION......................$ 68,925.00
This item involves the installation of lashing pad eyes.
The invoice indicates that the existing lashing padeyes were
modified and reinforced. Petitioner alleges that this operation
constitutes a modification in that the vessel's operating
efficiency was enhanced and the need for maintenance was reduced.
It is the position of the Customs Service that neither
modifications, alterations, or additions to the hull and fittings
of a vessel are subject to vessel repair duties. Over the course
of years, the identification of modification processes has
evolved from judicial and administrative precedent. In
considering whether an operation has resulted in a modification
which is not subject to duty, the following elements may be
considered.
1. Whether there is a permanent incorporation into the hull or
superstructure of a vessel {see United States v. Admiral Oriental
Line et al., T.D. 44359 (1930)}, either in a structural sense or
as demonstrated by the means of attachment so as to be indicative
of the intent to be permanently incorporated. This element
should not be given undue weight in view of the fact that vessel
components must be welded or otherwise "permanently attached" to
the ship as a result of constant pitching and rolling. In
addition, some items, the cost of which is clearly dutiable,
interact with other vessel components resulting in the need,
possibly for that purpose alone, for a fixed and stable
juxtaposition of vessel parts. It follows that a "permanent
attachment" takes place that does not necessarily involve a
modification to the hull and fittings.
2. Whether in all likelihood, an item under consideration would
remain aboard a vessel during an extended layup.
3. Whether, if not a first time installation, an item under
consideration replaces a current part, fitting or structure which
is not in good working order.
4. Whether an item under consideration provides an improvement
or enhancement in operation or efficiency of the vessel.
We have held that the removal of an existing, operational
system for the purpose of improving the efficient performance of
the vessel is not dutiable provided that the work was not
performed in conjunction with dutiable repairs. Customs Ruling
108871. Even if an article is considered to be part of the hull
and fittings of a vessel, the repair of that article, or the
replacement of a worn part of the hull and fittings, is subject
to vessel repair duties.
With regard to this item, we are satisfied that it
constitutes a modification. Accordingly, the cost of this item
($ 68,925.00) is non-dutiable.
ITEM 515 HATCH COVERS..............................$ 35,000.00
This item involves charges for "providing labor, material
and shore-crane to (sic) shifting all hatch covers ashore (or on
the bottom of the dock) and replace upon completion of the
inspection." Applicant seeks to have these items considered non-
dutiable on the basis that they constitute transportation costs.
According to C.I.E. 1325/58, charges for transportation of parts
and materials between a vessel and a workshop are not dutiable if
itemized separately. Moreover, it is the position of the Customs
Service that "transportation" does not include operations
relative to preparing the item for shipping. Thus, labor for
such services as removing a part from its housing or mounting, or
disconnecting an item, etc., does not constitute transportation
and are thus dutiable. See Headquarters Ruling Letter 112211,
dated June 30, 1992. With respect to the case at hand, the
invoice contains consolidated transportation charges and includes
charges for services which may not be included in transportation
costs. Accordingly, the entire cost of the item ($ 35,000.00) is
dutiable.
ITEM 515.1 HATCH COAMING
Sub-item (a) Repairs...........................$ 60,215.00
Sub-item (b) Staging...........................$ 2,000.00
Sub-item (c) Modifications.....................$ 19,900.00
This item consists of three separate elements: Repairs,
staging, and modifications.
Sub-item (a) contains charges for repair operations coupled
with charges for "administrative overhead" which is assessed as
an hourly charge by the shipyard intended to cover general
expenses involved in maintaining the shipyard facility during the
repair operations. Applicant acknowledges that the repairs in
sub-item (a) are dutiable, but claims that the administrative
overhead charges are non-dutiable.
Customs has had occasion to consider the dutiability of so-
called "overhead" charges (see Customs Ruling 111170, February
21, 1991). In that ruling, we cited a published Treasury
Decision of long standing wherein it was determined that:
Taxes paid on emoluments received by third
parties for services rendered...and premiums
paid on workmen's compensation insurance, are
not charges or fees within the contemplation
of the decision of the Customs Court,
International Navigation Company v. United
States, 38 USCR 5, CD 1836, and are therefore
subject to duty as components of the cost of
repairs under [section 1466].
"Emoluments" as used in the cited decision would include all
wages, taxes, accounting fees, office space charges, inventory or
mark-up costs, purchasing costs, and management fees.
Accordingly, the general and unspecified "overhead" charges
associated with this item, as well as with all the items
contained in this invoice, are considered dutiable. As a result,
the cost of sub-item (a) ($ 60,215.00) is fully dutiable.
Sub-item (b) contains charges for "furnish[ing] labor,
equipment (sic) and materials to modified (sic) the transverse
box girder inside stifference" and "erect[ing] [and removing]
staging." As the repair costs in this sub-item have not been
segregated from the staging costs, the entire cost of the sub-
item ($ 2,000.00) is dutiable.
Sub-item (c) contains charges for operations which applicant
contends should be considered non-dutiable modifications. After
evaluation of the shipyard invoice and technical drawings, we are
convinced that these operations were modifications. Accordingly,
the cost of this sub-item ($ 19,900.00) is non-dutiable.
ITEM 515.2 HATCH COVERS
Sub-item (a) Repairs...........................$ 42,600.00
Sub-item (b) Bearing Pad Modification..........$ 200,160.00
Sub-item (c) Hatch Cover Top Repairs...........$ 9,540.00
Sub-item (d) Staging...........................$ 600.00
This item involves various operations performed relative to
the vessel's hatch covers.
Sub-item (a) also contains charges for repair operations
coupled with charges for "administrative overhead" which is
assessed as an hourly charge by the shipyard intended to cover
general expenses involved in maintaining the shipyard facility
during the repair operations. Again, applicant acknowledges that
the repairs in sub-item (a) are dutiable, but claims that the
administrative overhead charges are non-dutiable.
Pursuant to previously cited authority, the overhead charges
associated with this item are fully dutiable. Thus, the entire
cost of the sub-item ($ 42,600.00) is dutiable.
Sub-item (b) contains charges for operations which applicant
contends should be considered non-dutiable modifications. After
evaluation of the shipyard invoice and technical drawings, we are
convinced that these operations were modifications. Accordingly,
the cost of this sub-item ($ 19,900.00) is non-dutiable.
Sub-item (c) also contains charges for repair operations
coupled with charges for "administrative overhead" which is
assessed as an hourly charge by the shipyard intended to cover
general expenses involved in maintaining the shipyard facility
during the repair operations. Again, applicant acknowledges that
the repairs in sub-item (c) are dutiable, but claims that the
administrative overhead charges are non-dutiable. Pursuant to
previously cited authority, the overhead charges associated with
this sub-item are fully dutiable. Thus, the entire cost of the
item ($ 9,540.00) is dutiable.
Sub-item (d) contains segregated staging costs and is non-
dutiable.
ITEM 516 TAILSHAFT SURVEY
Sub-item (a) Staging...........................$ 950.00
Sub-item (b) Inspection........................$ 10,883.00
Sub-item (c) Repairs...........................$ 6,780.00
This item involves operations performed pursuant to repairs
and inspection of the tailshaft.
Sub-item (a) contains segregated staging costs and is non-
dutiable.
Sub-items (b) and (c) contain charges related to preparing
for an inspection of the vessel's tailshaft. Applicant asserts
that the charges included in this item should be classified as
non-dutiable incidents to a required inspection.
Customs Service Decision 79-277 stated, "[i]f the survey was
undertaken to meet the specific requirements of a governmental
entity, classification society, insurance carrier, etc., the cost
is not dutiable even if dutiable repairs were effected as a
result of the survey."
With increasing frequency, this ruling and subsequent
rulings citing it, have been utilized by vessel owners seeking
relief not only from charges appearing on an ABS or Coast Guard
invoice (the actual cost of the inspection), but also as a
rationale for granting non-dutiability to a host of inspection-
related charges appearing on a shipyard invoice. In light of
this continuing trend, we offer the following clarification.
C.S.D. 79-277 discussed the dutiability of certain charges
incurred while the vessel underwent biennial U.S. Coast Guard and
ABS surveys. That case involved the following charges:
ITEM 29
(a) Crane open for inspection.
(b) Crane removed and taken to shop. Crane hob
and hydraulic unit dismantled and cleaned.
(c) Hydraulic unit checked for defects, OK.
Sundry jointings of a vessel's spare renewed.
(d) Parts for job repaired or renewed.
(e) Parts reassembled, taken back aboard ship
and installed and tested.
In conjunction with the items listed above, we held that a
survey undertaken to meet the specific requirements of a
governmental entity, classification society, insurance carrier is
not dutiable even when dutiable repairs are effected as a result
of the survey. We also held that where an inspection or survey
is conducted merely to ascertain the extent of damages sustained
or whether repairs are deemed necessary, the costs are dutiable
as part of the repairs which are accomplished (emphasis added).
It is important to note that only the cost of opening the
crane was exempted from duty by reason of the specific
requirements of the U.S. Coast Guard and the ABS. The
dismantling and cleaning of the crane hob and hydraulic unit was
held dutiable as a necessary prelude to repairs. Moreover, the
testing of the hydraulic unit for defects was also found dutiable
as a survey conducted to ascertain whether repairs are necessary.
Although the invoice indicates that the hydraulic unit was "OK,"
certain related parts and jointings were either repaired or
renewed. Therefore, the cost of the testing was dutiable.
We emphasize that the holding exempts from duty only the
cost of a required scheduled inspection by a qualifying entity
(such as the U.S. Coast Guard or the American Bureau of Shipping
(ABS). In the liquidation process, Customs should go beyond the
mere labels of "continuous" or "ongoing" before deciding whether
a part of an ongoing maintenance and repair program labelled
"continuous" or "ongoing" is dutiable.
Moreover, we note that C.S.D. 79-277 does not exempt from
duty the cost of maintenance or repair work done by a shipyard in
preparation of a required survey. Nor does it exempt from duty
the cost of any testing by the shipyard to check the
effectiveness of repairs completed previous to, or found to be
necessary by reason of, the required survey.
The exact nature of the item in question and the
circumstances surrounding it are unclear from the evidence
submitted. It is clear from the invoice, however, that at least
some repairs to the propeller and stern tube did occur. In light
of this, it is not clear whether the inspection was accomplished
to ascertain the effectiveness of repairs or whether the repairs
were a result of the inspection. In any event, in accordance
with C.S.D. 79-277, we hold these items to be dutiable incidents
to repair absent credible evidence to the contrary. Accordingly,
the cost of the item ($ 17,663.00) is dutiable.
ITEM 519.1 LONGITUDINAL STRUCTURE FR 59-61.........$ 39,300.00
ITEM 521 RELOCATE AFT HOSE MACHINERY...............$ 18,562.00
ITEM 522 STORE & HOSE CRANE HYDRAULICS.............$ 24,900.00
ITEM 530 BOW THRUSTER PIPING.......................$ 6,773.00
In a supplemental explanatory letter dated April 2, 1992,
the applicant stated that item 519.1 involved the "crop[ping]
back and renew[ing] the basic longitudinal structure." Applicant
further stated that this operation was necessitated by a "design
defect" which, coupled with "lack of exact fit, (lack of) good
welding, and (lack of) structural continuity" had led, over the
years, to "numerous fractures and repairs at the details of
welded connections." Items 521, 522, and 530 involved equipment
changes and repairs alleged to constitute modifications.
In C.I.E. 410/52, the Customs Service considered the issue
of design defects. In that case, a casualty occurrence led to an
ABS survey which required the vessel to undertake "slotting and
strapping of T-2 type tankers" in order to satisfy inspection
requirements. Relying on a letter from the American Bureau of
Shipping mandating the repairs, the Customs Service held that,
under such circumstances, any resulting work would be considered
non-dutiable modifications.
With regard to these items, the attached American Bureau of
Shipping documentation contains no mention of either the FR 59-
61 BHD structures, the aft crane hose machinery, or the stores
and hose crane hydraulic fitting. Accordingly, the work detailed
in the invoice cannot be considered non-dutiable modifications
and must be held dutiable unless and until evidence is presented
which clearly shows that such work was the result of a design
defect and that the operations undertaken were required by the
inspecting authority.
ITEM 520 FUEL OIL TANK CLEANING....................$ 44,500.00
This item contains charges related to the cleaning of the
fuel oil tank pursuant to fuel oil tank inspections. As it has
long been recognized that general cleaning that is not an
integral part of repairs is not dutiable. See, Traders Steamship
v. United States, C.D. 1827 (Customs Ct., 1946).
ITEM 525 BALLAST TANK INSPECTIONS..................$ 11,859.00
This item involves charges for inspections and surveys of
the ballast tank and associated repair operations. Upon
examining the invoice entry for this item, the exact nature of
the circumstances surrounding it is unclear according to the
evidence submitted. It is clear from the invoice, however, that
at least some repairs to the ballast tanks did occur. In light
of this, it is not clear whether the inspection was accomplished
to ascertain the effectiveness of repairs or whether the repairs
were a result of the inspection. In any event, in accordance
with C.S.D. 79-277, we hold these items to be dutiable incidents
to repair absent credible evidence to the contrary. Accordingly,
the cost of the item ($ 11,859.00) is dutiable.
ITEM 531 ANCHOR CHAIN & CHAIN LOCKER
Sub-item (a) Range Chains......................$ 5,418.00
Sub-item (b) Chain Repairs.....................$ 3,260.00
Sub-item (c) Chain Locker......................$ 3,090.00
This item involves operations undertaken pursuant to anchor
chain repairs and inspections.
It is well settled that cleaning operations which remove
rust and deterioration or worn parts, and which are a necessary
factor in the effective restoration of a vessel to its former
state of preservation, constitute vessel repairs. See C.I.E.
429/61. Customs has long held the cost of cleaning is non-
dutiable unless it is performed as part of, in preparation for,
or in conjunction with, dutiable repairs or is an integral part
of the overall maintenance of the vessel. See C.I.E.s 18/48,
820/60, 51/61, 429/61; C.S.D. 2514 and T.D.s 45001 and 49531.
With regard to sub-item (a), although an inspection did take
place, it is clear that the ranging of the anchors was performed
in preparation for the admittedly dutiable repairs in sub-item
(b). Accordingly the charge for this sub-item ($ 5,418.00) is
dutiable.
Applicant concedes that sub-item (b) ($ 3,260.00) is
dutiable as a repair.
With regard to sub-item (c), the invoice states that new
gaskets were provided after the job's completion. As this
indicates the existence of a non-segregated repair element, the
entire cost of sub-item (c) ($ 3,090.00) is dutiable.
ITEM 532 MAIN ENGINE SUMP PUMP.....................$ 3,500.00
This item contains charges related to the cleaning of the
main engine sump pump pursuant to inspections. As it has long
been recognized that general cleaning that is not an integral
part of repairs is not dutiable. See, Traders Steamship v.
United States, C.D. 1827 (Customs Ct., 1946).
ITEM 577 HARBOR SALT WATER SERVICE PUMP............$ 8,050.00
This item involves charges for cleaning, transporting and
repairing the salt water pump. In accordance with previously
cited authority, the opening of the pump constitutes a dutiable
prelude to repairs, the transportation charge contains
unsegregated disassembly charges, and the "renewal" of the
impeller each constitute a dutiable transaction under 19 U.S.C.
1466. Accordingly, the cost of the item ($ 8,050.00) is
dutiable.
CF 226 ITEM 20 SCAVENGER AIR SPACES
Entry item #20 indicates that the vessel underwent foreign
shipyard work to remove carbon and oil deposits from the main
engine scavenger spaces.
The scavenging spaces of a diesel engine are steel chambers
that are permanently attached to the cylinders of the engine.
The scavenging spaces serve two functions. First, the scavenging
spaces receive the discharge from the turbo-chargers and deliver
the charged air to each cylinder via reed valves and intake
ports. Second, air from the piston underside is pumped into the
scavenging space via reed valves to supplement turbo-charger-
delivered air. This air enters the cylinders via inlet ports
uncovered when the piston gets to the bottom end of its stroke
and serves to "scavenge" the burnt gasses out of the cylinder.
This process cleans the cylinders of spent energy and provides a
clean air discharge for the next fuel injection. As a result of
this process, some gasses containing unburnt carbon may be left
and deposited in the scavenging spaces.
These carbon deposits and other oily deposits in the
scavenger spaces may result in fire or explosion. They also
reduce the efficient operation of the engine. Diesel engine
maintenance manuals therefore require periodic cleaning of the
scavenger spaces to permit the safe and efficient operation of
the vessel. The maintenance of a scavenger space involves
removing access plates and scraping, wire brushing, and wiping
the inside of the space. This operation is labor intensive and
would take a single worker up to two working days to clean a
single cylinder.
In analyzing the dutiability of foreign vessel work, the
Customs Service has consistently held that cleaning is not
dutiable unless it is performed as part of, in preparation for,
or in conjunction with dutiable repairs or is an integral part of
the overall maintenance of the vessel. E.g., Headquarters Ruling
Letter 110841, dated May 29, 1990 (and cases cited therein). The
Customs Service considers work performed to restore a part to
good condition following deterioration or decay to be maintenance
operations within the meaning of the term repair as used in the
vessel repair statute. See generally, Headquarters Ruling
Letter 106543, dated February 27, 1984; C.I.E. 142/61, dated
February 10, 1961.
The dutiability of maintenance operations has undergone
considerable judicial scrutiny. The United States Court of
Customs and Patent Appeals, in ruling that the term repair as
used in the vessel repair statute includes "maintenance
painting," gave seminal recognition to the dutiability of
maintenance operations. E. E. Kelly & Co. v. United States, 55
Treas. Dec. 596, T.D. 43322 (C.C.P.A. 1929). The process of
chipping, scaling, cleaning, and wire brushing to remove rust and
corrosion that results in the restoration of a deteriorated item
in preparation for painting has also been held to be dutiable
maintenance. States Steamship Co. v. United States, 60 Treas.
Dec. 30, T.D. 45001 (Cust. Ct. 1931).
Most recently, the United States Customs Court examined
whether the scraping and cleaning of Rose Boxes constituted
dutiable repairs. Northern Steamship Company v. United States,
54 Cust. Ct. 92, C.D. 1735 (1965). Rose Boxes are parts fitted
at the ends of the bilge suction to prevent the suction pipes
from being obstructed by debris. The court determined that the
removal of dirt and foreign matter from the boxes did not result
in the restoration of the boxes to good condition following
deterioration and consequently held that the work was not subject
to vessel repair duties. Id. at 99.
The applicant cites this line of judicial and administrative
decisions and contends that these decisions establish a position
of the Customs Service with regard to the dutiability of cleaning
air scavenger spaces. We do not dispute that this line of
decisions generally establishes the position of the Customs
Service on the non-dutiability of cleaning operations unrelated
to repairs or the dutiability of maintenance operations.
However, the precise issue presented is whether the cleaning of
air scavenger spaces may be characterized as simple cleaning or
as maintenance, not whether cleaning or maintenance operations
are dutiable or non-dutiable.
The applicant's conclusion that the cleaning of air
scavenger spaces is a "simple" cleaning and is a fortiori not
subject to duty based on the decisions cited is untenable. The
applicant attempts to characterize the cleaning of air scavenger
spaces as "simple" cleaning needed only for inspection of the
engine valves. This characterization fails, however, to include
the threat of fire or explosion posed by the failure to properly
maintain the scavenger spaces. It further fails to note the
decline in efficiency of the engines that results from the
collection of the carbon and oil deposits in the air scavenger
spaces. As stated in our previous rulings, the collection of
carbon and oil deposits results in a deterioration--as manifested
in the safety and efficiency problems--of the air scavenger
spaces that may only be corrected by cleaning the air scavenger
spaces. See generally Headquarters Ruling Letter 111700, dated
November 19, 1991. We therefore reaffirm our position that
cleaning air scavenger spaces is a maintenance operation that is
subject to duty under 19 U.S.C. 1466.
The applicant contends that the Customs Service did not
publish its "surprise change of position" as required by the
Administrative Procedure Act and the Customs Regulations. The
Customs Regulations require the publication in the Federal
Register with an opportunity for public comment of a ruling that
has the effect of changing a practice that results in a higher
rate of duty. 19 C.F.R. 177.10(c)(1) (1992). The Customs
Service first addressed the issue of cleaning air scavenger
spaces in Headquarters Ruling Letter 110911, dated December 3,
1990. The protestant has failed to cite a ruling or to
demonstrate otherwise that the Customs Service had in fact
established a position on the dutiability under 19 U.S.C. 1466
of the cleaning of air scavenger spaces prior to Headquarters
Ruling Letter 110911. Moreover, as shown in the previous
paragraph, we do not believe that the protestant has demonstrated
that the holding in Headquarters Ruling Letter 110911 deviates
from existing judicial decisions or results in a reversal or
modification of any of the existing administrative rulings. We
submit that the reasoning and conclusion of that letter and
subsequent rulings on the issue are consistent with the precedent
identified in those ruling letters and by the protestant. Thus,
publication of a change of practice was not required.
Finally, the applicant contends that the Customs Service has
not held the cleaning of air scavenger spaces to be dutiable
since 1982. Headquarters Ruling Letter 110911 was issued in
response to an application for relief forwarded by the New York
Vessel Repair Liquidation Unit (VRLU) following which we learned
that from 1982 to 1990 the San Francisco VRLU had not been
assessing duty whereas the two other regional VRLU's were.
Absent a ruling letter or a published statement of position, we
hold that the protestant cannot rely on determinations made by
the San Francisco VRLU to establish a position of the Customs
Service. See Superior Wire v. United States, 7 Fed. Cir. (T) 43,
45-46, 867 F.2d. 1409, 1412-13 (1989).
In accordance with the foregoing, the charges for cleaning
of scavenger air spaces are fully dutiable.
ITEM 22 ME/FLAP REED VALVE CHANGE
ITEM 23 DECK DEPARTMENT CLEANING
These items constitute charges on the CF 226 which are
unsupported by additional documentation. As such is the case, we
must hold such items dutiable until evidence detailing their
character is submitted.
HOLDING:
Following a thorough review of the evidence submitted as
well as analysis of the applicable law and precedents, we have
determined that the Application for Review should be allowed in
part and denied in part as set forth in the Law and Analysis
portion of this ruling.
Sincerely,
Acting Chief