HQ 111273: LASH barge; 19 U.S.C. 1466(h); retroactive effect on pending protests; rubpad installation; cleaning Vessel: ROBERT E. LEE V-46 Vessel Repair Entry No. 514-3002900-2 Protest No. 1001-0-000675 Date of Arrival: May 8, 1987 Port of Arrival: New York, New York

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 111273

                          May 24, 1991


VES-13-18-CO:R:IT:C 111273 KVS

CATEGORY:  Carriers

Chief
Residual Liquidation and Protest Branch
6 World Trade Center
New York, NY  10048-0954

RE:  LASH barge; 19 U.S.C. 1466(h); retroactive effect on pending
     protests; rubpad installation; cleaning
     Vessel:  ROBERT E. LEE V-46
     Vessel Repair Entry No. 514-3002900-2
     Protest No. 1001-0-000675
     Date of Arrival:  May 8, 1987
     Port of Arrival:  New York, New York

Dear Sir:

     This is in response to your memorandum of August 13, 1990,
which forwards for our consideration protest no. 1001-0-000675,
filed in connection with the ROBERT E. LEE, vessel repair entry
no. 514-3002900-2.  Our findings are set forth below.

FACTS:

     The ROBERT E. LEE, a Lighter Aboard Ship (LASH) barge
mother vessel, arrived in the United States at New York, New
York on May 8, 1987, with a complement of LASH barges which had
undergone various shipyard operations while abroad.  The vessel
made formal entry on May 13, 1987.

     An application for relief was timely filed on May 11, 1987.
The application was denied as an insufficient submission in
Customs Letter Ruling 110046 (dated April 20, 1989).  The
petition for review filed June 2, 1989, was granted in full
pursuant to Customs Letter Ruling 110331 (dated September 11,
1989).  Liquidation of the entry took place on October 27, 1989.

     Although the petition clearly held the installation of
rubpads to be non-dutiable, the liquidation erroneously failed to
provide relief for these charges.  The protest currently under
consideration was timely filed on January 19, 1990, and seeks
relief for the cost of rubpad installation as well as certain
cleaning costs.
                              - 2 -


ISSUE:

     Whether the cost of cleaning and rubpad installation carried
out aboard the subject LASH barge 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 engaged,
intended to engage, or documented under the laws of the United
States to engage in the foreign or coastwise trade.

     Section 1466 was amended by the Act of August 20, 1990 (Pub.
L. 101-382), whereby a new paragraph (h)(1) was added which
exempts from duty under section 1466(a), the cost of parts,
materials, equipment, and repairs made abroad to U.S.-documented
LASH barges used as cargo containers.  The effective date of the
amendment is stated as follows:

          Effective Date.--The amendment made by this
          section shall apply to--

          (1) any entry made before the date of
          enactment of this Act that is not liquidated
          on the date of enactment of this Act, and

          (2) any entry made--
               (A) on or after the date of enactment of
                   this Act, and
               (B) on or before December 31, 1992.

     In the case currently before us, the entry in question was
liquidated on December 22, 1989, before the date of enactment on
August 20, 1990, and thus, would appear to fall outside the
purview of the amendment.

     However, Customs Letter Ruling 111474 GEV (dated March 6,
1991), discussed the retroactive impact of the new amendment to
those cases in which a protest was pending on the date of
enactment of the new legislation.  Upon examining the applicable
legislative history of the amendment, as well as reviewing
various court decisions and other statutory use of the term
"liquidated," we held that:

          For purposes of the retroactive impact of
          new section 1466(h), the benefits of said
          legislation will inure to those entries which
          were not finally liquidated (i.e., for which

                              - 3 -


          a timely protest was filed or court action
          initiated) on or before August 20, 1990.

     Accordingly, since the protest under consideration had been
timely filed on or before the date of the amendment's enactment
(August 20, 1990), the entry had not been "finally liquidated"
and would thus be entitled to any benefit extended by the
legislation.

     However, the statutory exemption for the cost of equipment
and repairs extends only to those LASH barges documented under
the laws of the United States and utilized as cargo containers.
Therefore, we suggest that the vessel owner be notified of the
need for additional information.  Upon receipt of a certificate
of documentation and a certification as to the vessel's use, the
protest should be granted.

HOLDING:

     The cost of rubpad installation and cleaning carried out
aboard the subject LASH barge is not dutiable pursuant to 19
U.S.C. 1466(h).




                                Sincerely,




                                B. James Fritz
                                Chief
                                Carrier Rulings Branch