HQ 111444: Vessel repair; application; insufficient Vessel: OMI DYNACHEM V-134 Vessel Repair Entry No. 203-0003254-5 Date of Arrival: July 26, 1990 Port of Arrival: Bellingham, 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 111444



                        January 28, 1991



VES-13-18-CO:R:IT:C  111444 KVS

CATEGORY:  Carriers

Chief, Technical Branch
Commercial Operations Division
1 World Trade Center
Long Beach, CA  90831

RE:  Vessel repair; application; insufficient
     Vessel:  OMI DYNACHEM V-134
     Vessel Repair Entry No. 203-0003254-5
     Date of Arrival:  July 26, 1990
     Port of Arrival:  Bellingham, Washington

Dear Sir:

     This is in response to your memorandum of December 6, 1990,
which forwards for our consideration an application for relief
from vessel repair duties filed in connection with the OMI
DYNACHEM, vessel repair entry no. 203-0003254-5.  Our findings
are set forth below.

FACTS:

     The DYNACHEM, an American-flag vessel, underwent foreign
shipyard operations at a Canadian shipyard from July 16, 1990,
until July 22, 1990.  The vessel arrived in the United States at
Bellingham, Washington, on July 26, 1990, and made timely entry
on August 1, 1990.  The application for relief currently under
consideration was timely filed on September 24, 1990.

ISSUE:

     Whether an application for relief from vessel repair duties
which does not comply with the requirements delineated in the
Customs Regulations may be considered by Customs on its merits.





                              - 2 -


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.

     The Customs Regulations contain specific procedural and
content requirements regarding the filing of an application for
relief from vessel repair duties.  Section 4.14(d)(1)(i), Customs
Regulations (19 CFR 4.14(d)(1)(i)), in addressing requirements
relating to the form and content of an application states:

          If an application for relief is filed by a
          corporation, it shall be signed by an
          authorized corporate officer.

     Furthermore, section 4.14(d)(1)(iv), Customs Regulations (19
CFR 4.14(d)(1)(iv), in addressing requirements relating to the
submission of documentary evidence states:

          All documents submitted in support of an
          application must be certified by the master
          or owner of the vessel to be originals or
          copies of originals.  If a vessel is owned or
          operated by a corporation, the master or an
          authorized corporate officer shall certify
          the documents.

     In case currently before us, the application submitted is
remiss in its compliance with the regulations set forth above.
The application was signed not by an authorized corporate
officer, but by a member of the engineering department of the
corporate owner with unknown authority to execute documents, and
no certification as to the authenticity of the submitted
documents has been provided.

     This is not the first instance of non-compliance by this
vessel owner.  The same deficiencies were present in a prior
submission in which the vessel owner was duly notified of such
deficiencies and given an opportunity to cure.  The vessel owner
neglected to do so.  In the absence of compliance with the
applicable Customs regulations, an application for relief will
not be considered by Customs on the merits.  Accordingly, the
application for relief is denied in full.





                              - 3 -


HOLDING:

     An application for relief from vessel repair duties which
does not substantively comply with the requirements delineated in
the Customs Regulations may not be considered by Customs on the
merits.

                                Sincerely,




                                B. James Fritz
                                Chief
                                Carrier Rulings Branch