HQ 111771: Vessel repair; Maritime Administration vessel; Vessel CAPE DOUGLAS, V-01; Vessel repair entry H19-0901228-8

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 111771

                        December 17, 1991


VES-13-18-CO:R:IT:C  111771 LLB

CATEGORY:  Carriers

Chief, Technical Branch
Commercial Operations
Pacific Region
One World Trade Center
Long Beach, California 90731

RE:  Vessel repair; Maritime Administration vessel; Vessel CAPE
     DOUGLAS, V-01; Vessel repair entry H19-0901228-8

Dear Sir:

     Reference is made to your memorandum of June 18, 1991, which
forwards for our consideration the Application for Relief from
the assessment of vessel repair duties filed by Marine Transport
Lines, Inc., in regard to the above-captioned vessel repair
entry.

FACTS:

     The applicant operates the CAPE DOUGLAS on behalf of the
vessel owner, the Maritime Administration of the United States
Department of Transportation, and filed a vessel repair entry
upon first arrival in the United States at the port of Honolulu,
Hawaii.  Repairs had been performed while the vessel was in Ad
Dammam, Saudi Arabia, and in Singapore.  The filing of the
Application for Relief was done as a formality, since the Customs
Service and the Maritime Administration have entered into
agreement that the latter is to be billed for any vessel repair
duties owed for repairs to vessels which it owns and which are
operated by contract parties.

ISSUE:

     Whether any evidence is provided which will permit remission
or refund of vessel repair duties assessed upon arrival of the
vessel CAPE DOUGLAS.




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.

     There is no claim for relief made in this case.  In fact,
the applicant states, "There was no stress of weather or casualty
requiring the repairs and/or purchases.  The repairs were
necessitated by old tired equipment merely wearing itself out of
service unexpectedly."  In light of this fact, there is no
relief warranted.

HOLDING:

     After full review of the facts and law, we conclude that no
relief from the assessment of vessel repair duty is warranted in
this case.

                                 Sincerely,




                                 B. James Fritz
                                 Chief
                                 Carrier Rulings Branch