HQ 110758: Protest; Vessel Repairs; Non-compliance With Protest Requirements

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 110758

                          July 25, 1990


VES-13-18 CO:R:P:C 110758 BEW

CATEGORY:  Carriers

Chief, Residual Liquidation Branch
U.S. Customs Service
6 World Trade Center
New York, New York 10048-0945

RE:  Protest; Vessel Repairs; Non-compliance With Protest
     Requirements

Dear Sir:

     This is in reference to a memorandum from your office which
transmitted protest No. 1001-7-002873, relating to vessel repair
entry no. 4601-86-7159068, concerning the M/V SEA-LAND EXPRESS,
Voyage No. 89, which arrived at the port of Elizabeth, New
Jersey, on May 7, 1986.  The entry was filed on May 8, 1986.

FACTS:

     The above-captioned protest seeks reliquidation on the
basis of foreign shipyard work having been performed pursuant to
a warranty recognizable under the decision of the Court of
International Trade in the case of Sea-Land Service, Inc. v.
United States, 683 F. Supp. 1404 (1988).

     The vessel was taken abroad for the purpose of having a mid-
body addition inserted in order to lengthen the vessel by some
one-hundred (100) feet.  This was accomplished and the vessel was
redelivered to Sea-Land by the shipyard in 1985.  The work was
performed under a construction contract which was identical for
twelve (12) Sea-Land vessels which were modified at nearly the
same time.  The standard contract contained a warranty clause
(Article XI WARRANTY OF QUALITY), containing two time elements,
which read as follows:


     (b)  Guarantee Period.  The guarantee of the contractor
     shall expire:

          (i)  for defects in design, material or workmanship
          which the owner might discover by the exercise of due
          diligence:  twelve (12) months from the date of
          redelivery of the CONVERTED VESSEL.

          (ii)  for defect in material or workmanship which could
          not be discovered by the exercise of the owner`s due
          diligence (i. e. , latent defects):  twenty-four (24)
          months from the date of redelivery of the CONVERTED
          VESSEL.

     The warranty provisions are conditioned upon timely written
notice being given by the owner to the shipyard within 20 days
following the expiration of the warranty period.

ISSUE:

     Whether the protest meets the statutory requirements of 19
U.S.C. 1514.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     Following liquidation, a protest may be filed against the
decision to treat an item or a repair as dutiable under 19 U.S.C.
1466(a) (19 C.F.R. 4.14).  Under the provisions of title 19
United States Code, section 1514, such protest of duties shall be
filed within 90 days from the notice of liquidation.

     Under the provisions of title 19, United States Code,
section 1514(c)(1), a protest of a decision under subsection (a)
of this section shall be filed in writing with the appropriate
Customs officer designated in regulations prescribed by the
Secretary, setting forth distinctly and specifically each
decision described in subsection (a) of this section as to which
protest is made; each category of merchandise affected by each
such decision as to which protest is made; and the nature of each
objection and reasons therefor.

     In the subject case, the entry was liquidated on
December 29, 1986.  Customs received the protest on March 2,
1987, which states:

          Check with K. Peterson, U.S. Custom
          Washington, D.C. re recent ruling on
          continuation of modification position of
          Sea-Land.


     The statute plainly requires that protests set forth
distinctly and specifically each category of merchandise, and
each objection and reasons therefor.  Accordingly, we find the
protest to be defective as filed

HOLDING:

     The subject protest is defective in that it does not meet
the requirements set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1514(c).

                                  Sincerely,



                                  Stuart P. Seidel
                                  Director, Regulatory Procedures
                                  and Penalties Division