VES-13-18-CO:R:P:C 111226 KVS
Chief, Technical Branch
Commercial Operations Division
1 World Trade Center
Long Beach, CA 90831
RE: Vessel repair; untimely application for relief; untimely
supporting documentation
Vessel: SEA-LAND MARINER V-103
Vessel Repair Entry No. 110-0103985-5
Date of Arrival: February 26, 1990
Port of Arrival: Tacoma, Washington
Dear Sir:
This is in response to your memorandum of July 24, 1990,
which forwards for our consideration an application for relief
filed in connection with the MARINER, vessel repair entry no.
110-0103985-5. Our findings are set forth below.
FACTS:
The MARINER, an American-flag vessel, underwent various
shipyard operations in Kobe, Singapore, Yokohama, Hong Kong and
Kaohsiung in January - February, 1990. The vessel arrived in the
United States at Tacoma, Washington, on February 26, 1990, and
made formal entry on March 5, 1990.
The applicant requested and received from the San Francisco
Vessel Repair Liquidation Unit a 30-day extension of time in
which to file an application for relief and supporting
documentation. The application for relief, with supporting cost
evidence, was filed May 30, 1990.
ISSUE:
Whether, in the absence of an additional 30-day extension,
an application for relief, with supporting cost evidence, which
is filed on the 93rd day after the date of the vessel's arrival
may be considered by Customs on the 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 provide specific time
limitations for the submission of an application for relief of
vessel repair duties. This time period is contained in section
4.14(d)(1)(ii), which states:
The application for relief, with supporting
evidence, shall be filed within 60 days from
the date of first arrival of the vessel.
However, if good cause is shown, the
appropriate vessel repair unit may authorize
one 30-day extension of time to file beyond
the 60-day filing period.
Furthermore, the regulations specify that the time period
for filing the application for relief is concurrent with the time
period for submission of costs. Section 4.14(b)(2)(ii)(B)
states:
The 60-day time period to submit evidence of
cost on the entry is concurrent with the 60-
day time period to submit an application for
relief under paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this
section and will not operate to provide
additional time to submit an application for
relief. A request for additional time to
submit evidence of cost may include a request
for additional time to submit an application
for relief.
This additional time to submit evidence of cost and an
application for relief is found in section 4.14(b)(2)(ii),
Customs Regulations:
If before the end of the 60-day period, the
party that is required to furnish the
evidence of cost submits a written request
for an extension of time beyond the 60-day
period, together with a satisfactory
explanation of the delay, to the appropriate
vessel repair liquidation unit, that unit may
grant an additional 30-day extension of time
to submit cost evidence. Any request for a
further extension of time to furnish evidence
- 3 -
of cost shall be submitted to Headquarters,
U.S. Customs Service...for approval.
In the case under consideration, the MARINER arrived at
Tacoma, Washington, on February 26, 1990. Under the regulations,
the vessel had until April 27, 1990 to submit an application for
relief and evidence of cost. The applicant's request for a 30-
day extension, which was granted by the vessel repair liquidation
unit, extended that date until May 27, 1990. Here, the
application and supporting documentation were not filed until May
30, 1990.
In the absence of a request for an additional 30-day
extension from Customs Headquarters pursuant to section
4.14(b)(2)(ii), the application and supporting documentation are
untimely filed and may not be considered on the merits.
Accordingly, the application for relief is denied.
Sincerely,
B. James Fritz
Chief
Carrier Rulings Branch