VES-13-18-RR:IT:EC 114157 GOB
Port Director of Customs
Attn.: Vessel Repair Liquidation Unit, Room 415
P.O. Box 2450
San Francisco, CA 94126
RE: Vessel Repair Entry No. H19-0967106-7; MOKU PAHU, V-198;
19 U.S.C. 1466; Application
Dear Madam:
This is in response to your memorandum of October 30, 1997,
which forwarded the application for relief submitted by Matson
Navigation Company ("applicant") with respect to the above-referenced vessel repair entry.
FACTS:
The evidence of record indicates the following. The MOKU
PAHU (the "vessel"), a U.S.-flag vessel owned and operated by
Hawaiian Sugar & Transportation, arrived at the port of Honolulu,
Hawaii on May 21, 1997. The subject vessel repair entry was
subsequently filed. The vessel underwent certain foreign
shipyard work in Victoria, Canada.
ISSUE:
Whether sufficient evidence has been submitted which would
allow thorough consideration of the dutiability of the foreign
shipyard operations involved in the above-referenced entry.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
19 U.S.C. 1466 provides for the payment of duty at a rate of
fifty percent ad valorem on the cost of foreign repairs to
vessels documented under the laws of the United States to engage
in foreign or coastwise trade, or vessels intended to be employed
in such trade.
The applicant has submitted a brief letter, spreadsheets,
and invoices. The letter does not provide any narrative
description or information with respect to the work performed,
nor does it provide any specific assertion that specific items
are nondutiable and the reason for such assertion. The
spreadsheets, which are briefly referenced or described in the
letter, contain a dutiable column and a nondutiable column.
In Ruling 113839 dated March 3, 1997, we excerpted Ruling
111714 and stated:
In Ruling 111714 dated January 22, 1992, we stated:
The operator, in seeking relief from the duty
provisions of section 466, Tariff Act of
1930, as amended, (19 U.S.C. 1466), filed a one-page cover letter forwarding various invoices and
worksheets which reflect proposed
dispositions. Although the letter denominates itself an Application for Relief, it does
not rise to that level.
...
The regulations governing the submission of
evidence and the determination of
dutiability of foreign shipyard operations under section 1466 are found in section 4.14, Customs
Regulations (19 CFR 4.14). Subsection
(d)(1) of section 4.14 (19 CFR 4.14(d)(1)) provides that while an Application for relief need not
be submitted in any particular format, it
is necessary that it:
...allege that an item or a repair expense
covered by the entry is not subject to duty
under paragraph (a) of this section, or that the
articles purchased or the repair expenses
are within the provisions of paragraph (c) of this section, or that both conditions are present.
Our position in Ruling 111714 has been reiterated in
numerous other rulings, e.g., Ruling 111746, Ruling
113521, etc.
Thus, as stated above, for the purpose of the issuance
of rulings of this office with respect to applications,
petitions, and protests, it is Customs' position that
an item must be identified within the text of the application, petition, and/or protest. The mere inclusion of an
item on a spreadsheet or worksheet, is not sufficient for
this purpose. [End of excerpt from Ruling 113839.]
Accordingly, we determine that relief cannot be granted
because a valid application was not submitted.
HOLDING:
As stated above, relief cannot be granted. This entry
should be liquidated and the vessel operator should be informed
of the right to file a protest of the liquidation.
We have ruled similarly in Rulings 111714, 111746, 113521
and 113525.
Sincerely,
Jerry Laderberg
Chief,
Entry Procedures and Carriers
Branch