Vessel Repair; 19 U.S.C. 1466; PRESIDENT EISENHOWER, V-77; Entry No. C-28-0146871-4; Application; Staging; CherryPicker; Cleaning.

HQ 112532 March 14, 1995 VES-13-18-CO:R:IT:C 112532 GOB CATEGORY: Carriers Deputy Regional Director Commercial Operations Pacific Region One World Trade Center Long Beach, California 90831-0700 RE: Vessel Repair; 19 U.S.C. 1466; PRESIDENT EISENHOWER, V- 77; Entry No. C-28-0146871-4; Application; Staging; Cherry Picker; Cleaning. Dear Sir: This ruling is in response to your memorandum dated November 18, 1992, which forwarded the application for relief submitted by American President Lines, Ltd. ("applicant") in connection with the above-referenced vessel repair entry. FACTS: The record indicates that the M.V. PRESIDENT EISENHOWER ("the vessel") entered the port of Oakland, California on June 11, 1992 and filed the subject vessel repair entry. You request our determination with respect to the following items. Item Description 1(e) Staging 11(b) Cherry Picker 11(c) Dry Dock Bottom Cleaning 12(b) Cherry Picker 13(b) Staging 20(c) Staging 24(b) Staging 25(b) Staging 28 Paint Supplied Under Guarantee - 2 - ISSUE: Whether the subject items are dutiable pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1466. 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 various staging costs are nondutiable, pursuant to previous rulings. The cherry picker costs are nondutiable. We find that the cost of the "dry dock bottom cleaning", which was undertaken in connection with hull painting, is dutiable. In Texaco Marine Services Inc. v. United States, Case No. 93-1354, decided on December 29, 1994, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the costs of post-repair cleaning and protective coverings are dutiable under 19 U.S.C. 1466. With respect to item 28, the applicant asks for relief with respect to the cost of paint which it claims was supplied "at no cost under guarantee by 'CMP' and China Shipbuilding Corporation." We find that the cost of the paint is dutiable. We note initially that the applicant has not provided any documentation in support of its claim that the paint was supplied to it at no cost. We note additionally that it has been Customs' position that warranty work falls within the scope of dutiability pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1466 unless such work falls within the scope of Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. United States, 683 F.Supp. 1404 (C.I.T. 1988), which recognized the validity of warranties issued in the context of new vessel construction. HOLDING: As detailed supra, the application is granted in part and denied in part. Sincerely, Arthur P. Schifflin Chief Carrier Rulings Branch