Protest No. 300019-000957, RALEIGH BAY V-1 Date of Arrival: May 9, 1988 Port of Arrival: Tacoma, Washington Vessel Repair Entry: 110-0103679-4

HQ 110638 May 24, 1990 VES-13-18-CO:R:P:C 110638 KVS CATEGORY: Carriers Chief, Technical Branch Pacific Region 1 World Trade Center Suite 705 Long Beach, CA 90831 Re: Protest No. 300019-000957, RALEIGH BAY V-1 Date of Arrival: May 9, 1988 Port of Arrival: Tacoma, Washington Vessel Repair Entry: 110-0103679-4 Dear Sir: Your memorandum dated October 12, 1989, forwarded a protest regarding vessel repair entry no. 110-0103679-4. Our findings are set forth below. FACTS: Headquarters earlier had occasion to render a decision regarding this vessel repair entry. Customs Letter Ruling 110193 RAH (dated July 12, 1989) determined that the entry should be liquidated as dutiable since an application for relief had not been timely filed. The vessel arrived in the United States on May 9, 1988 at Tacoma, Washington. Formal entry documents were filed on May 16, 1988. On July 7, 1988, Sea-Land filed a request for a 30-day extension to the 60-day time period given by the regulations in which to file an Application for Relief. The request was granted and the applicant was given until August 8, 1988, in which to file. Sea-Land failed to file an Application for Relief within the extended time period and on August 8, 1988, Headquarters denied Sea-Land's request for further extension of time to submit evidence of cost (see Customs Letter 109658 GV (dated August 8, 1988)). The entry was liquidated on August 11, 1989. The protest currently under consideration was filed August 21, 1989. - 2 - ISSUE: Whether the work performed on the subject vessel constitutes dutiable repairs within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. 1466. LAW AND ANALYSIS: Section 466, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1466) 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 foreign or coastwise trade, or vessels intended to engage in such trade. In its application of the vessel repair statute (19 U.S.C. 1466), Customs has held that modifications/alterations/additions to the hull and fittings of a vessel are not subject to vessel repair duties. The protest under consideration asserts that the various items of foreign shipyard work performed on the RALEIGH BAY constitute such a nondutiable modification. In support of this claim, Sea-Land has submitted Keppel Shipyard invoice no. 4501/88. Among the many items listed on Keppel invoice no. 4501/88 claimed to be non-dutiable is the cost involves in changing the name of the vessel. Item 8186 reads: NAME CHANGE Existing name on bow, transom, bridge name boards, removed and new name installed. On hull, name outlined by bead-welds. Name boards on bridge of chengal wood with weather varnished... Ship's name "NEWARK BAY" on bow transom and bridge name board removed and new name "RALEIGH BAY" installed. On hull, name outlined by bead-weld. Contrary to the information contained in Keppel invoice 4501/88, Lloyd's Register indicates that the NEWARK BAY and the RALEIGH BAY are two different vessels. Furthermore, along with its application for relief for the subject entry, Sea-Land submitted a letter dated December 19, 1988, (copy enclosed) which addressed the clarification of dates for the entries of 12 Sea-Land vessels, one of which was the RALEIGH BAY. - 3 - The letter indicates that the RALEIGH BAY entered the United States at Tacoma, Washington on 5/9/88 and that the entry number for this voyage is 559-1236280-7. The protest currently under consideration for the RALEIGH BAY V-1, indicates that the vessel arrived on 5/9/88, made entry on 5/16/88, and that the entry number for the voyage in question is 110-0103679-4. As the above discussion demonstrates, the information before us is unclear. The documentation submitted by Sea-Land contains inconsistencies regarding both the name of the vessel and the entry number under consideration. Since the record does not clearly establish the requisite elements to permit a finding that the foreign shipyard work was a non-dutiable modification, we decline to do so. Accordingly, the protest is denied in full. HOLDING: Absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the work performed on the subject vessel constitutes dutiable repairs within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. 1466. Sincerely, B. James Fritz Chief Carrier Rulings Branch