HQ 110694: Vessel Repair Entry No. C27-0075210-1; Date of Arrival: May 8, 1989; Port of Arrival: San Pedro, California; Vessel: MV PRESIDENT WASHINGTON

Native CBP ruling rendition. Applicability is fact-specific; modification/revocation relationships and original publisher date are retained. Publisher sentinel year0001 means unknown date, not a historical legal adoption.

                            HQ 110694

                        February 7, 1990

VES-13-18:CO:R:P:C 110694 LLB

CATEGORY: Carriers

Chief, Technical Branch
Pacific Region
U.S. Customs Service
One World Trade Center
Long Beach, CA  90831

RE:  Vessel Repair Entry No. C27-0075210-1;
     Date of Arrival:  May 8, 1989;
     Port of Arrival:  San Pedro, California;
     Vessel:  MV PRESIDENT WASHINGTON

Dear Sir:

     This is in response to your transmittal of November 20,
1989, regarding the above-referenced vessel repair entry.

FACTS:

     The record reflects that the subject vessel arrived at the
Port of San Pedro, California, from Yokohama, Japan, on May 8,
1989.  An incomplete entry was filed the same day reflecting
foreign repairs made to the vessel in Kaohsiung, Republic of
China, and Kobe and Yokohama, Japan.  An extension of time to
file an application for relief and evidence of cost was granted
through August 7, 1989.  A timely application for relief was
filed on July 17, 1989, which is the subject of this ruling.

     You specifically request our advice on the following items
listed on China Shipbuilding Corporation Kaohsiung Shipyard
Invoice, which the applicant claims are modifications to the
vessel and, therefore, not subject to duty:

               535 - piping modification;
               537 - engine room deck drains;
               538 - spare main engine cylinder lines;
               539 - spare accommodation ladders;
               557 - salt water piping;
               560 - pilot ladder davit;
               579 - steam valves;
               580 - engine room monorail;
               588 - fuel oil settling tank;
               591 - stern tube vent line.

ISSUE:

     Whether the work performed on the subject vessel for which
the applicant seeks relief is dutiable under 19 U.S.C.  1466
(a).

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     Title 19, United States Code, section 1466(a) (19 U.S.C.
  1466(a)), provides in pertinent part that the equipment, or
any part thereof, including boats, purchased for or the repair
parts or materials to be used, or the expenses of repairs made in
a foreign country upon a vessel documented under the laws of the
United States to engage in the foreign or coastwise trade, or a
vessel intended to be employed in such trade, shall, on the first
arrival of such vessel in any port of the United States be liable
to entry and the payment of an ad valorem duty of 50 per cent on
the cost thereof in such foreign country.

     Customs has held that for an item to be characterized as a
nondutiable modification, it must encompass the installation of
an item as a new design feature, not as a replacement for, or
restoration of, parts now performing a similar function.  We have
also held that the decision in each case as to whether an
installation constitutes a nondutiable addition to the hull and
fittings of the vessel depends to a great extent on the detail
and accuracy of the drawings and invoice descriptions of the
actual work performed.  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.

     In the present case, we find that the invoice descriptions
of the work performed in conjunction with the claims in the
application for relief provide sufficient proof that no repairs
were made to the items in question.  We further find that these
items involved installation of new design features and not mere
replacement of existing parts.  Accordingly, the items in
question constitute nondutiable modifications to the hull and
fittings of the vessel.


HOLDING:

     Following a thorough review of the evidence provided, and as
detailed in the law and analysis section of this ruling, we
recommend that the application for relief regarding the items
under consideration be granted in full.



                              Sincerely,



                              B. James Fritz
                              Chief
                              Carrier Rulings Branch