19 U.S.C. 1466; GREEN WAVE, V-92/93; Vessel Repair Entry No. 808-0151511-8 ; Petition

HQ 114740 June 30, 1999 VES-13-18-RR:IT:EC 114740 GOB CATEGORY: Carriers Port Director of Customs Attn.: Vessel Repair Liquidation Unit, Room 107 P.O. Box 2450 San Francisco, CA 94126 RE: 19 U.S.C. 1466; GREEN WAVE, V-92/93; Vessel Repair Entry No. 808- 0151511-8 ; Petition Dear Madam: This ruling is in response to your memorandum dated June 16, 1999, which forwarded the petition submitted by Central Gulf Lines, Inc. (“petitioner”) with respect to the above-referenced vessel repair entry. FACTS: The GREEN WAVE (the “vessel”), a U.S.-flag vessel owned and operated by the petitioner, arrived at the port of San Francisco on December 15, 1998. The subject vessel repair entry was subsequently filed. The vessel underwent certain foreign shipyard work in Singapore and Japan. ISSUE: Whether there is a basis for relief under 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, and equipment purchased in a foreign country for, 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 petitioner requests relief with respect to general services items. It is Customs oft-repeated position that general services costs and drydock costs are to be prorated between dutiable and nondutiable costs. This position is an attempt to administer 19 U.S.C. 1466 as fairly and impartially as possible. Accordingly, consistent with this position, and consistent with treatment afforded all other vessel owners subject to 19 U.S.C. 1466, general services costs are to be prorated, as you have done. In its extremely brief petition, the petitioner also requests relief with respect to other costs. However, it does not specifically identify which items it is requesting relief for, nor does it provide any adequate explanation or adequate documentary evidence as to a basis for relief. Accordingly, there is no basis upon which relief is warranted. If we are unable to determine the precise nature of certain work because of the lack of clear and probative documentary evidence, and are thus unable to determine that it is nondutiable, such work will be found dutiable. In this regard, we note the statement of the Customs Court in Admiral Oriental Line v. United States, T.D. 43585 (1929): The evidence is conflicting upon that point, and the plaintiff has not proved the collector’s classification to be wrong. The burden is upon the plaintiff to show not only that the collector was wrong in his classification but that the plaintiff was right. In A Manual of Customs Law by Ruth F. Sturm, 1974 edition, p. 173-174, the author states, in pertinent part: Where Congress has carved out special privileges or exemptions from the general provisions levying duties upon imported articles, the courts have strictly construed such exceptions and have resolved any doubt in favor of the government. Swan & Finch Company v. United States, 190 U.S. 143, 23 SCR 702, 47 L. Ed. 984 (1903); Pelz-Greenstein Co. v. United States, 17 CCPA 305, T.D. 43718 (1929)... ... An exception which carves out something which would otherwise be included must be strictly construed. Goat & Sheepskin Import Co., et al. v. United States, 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 178, T.D. 34254 (1914); [et al.] With respect to future submissions, the petitioner is advised that it should provide a full and complete explanation in the body of the submission as to the specific basis of statutory relief (i.e., the specific provision of 19 U.S.C. 1466) and as to why the specific item qualifies for such relief. The submission of invoices, blueprints, and the like is not a substitute for a thorough narrative explanation in the application, petition, or protest. Further, the petitioner should provide adequate and clear documentary evidence supporting the claims of its submission. It should be made clear in the submission which specific items (i.e., item numbers, invoice numbers, page numbers, etc.) are at issue with respect to each claim. HOLDING: As detailed above, the petition is denied. Sincerely, Jerry Laderberg Chief, Entry Procedures and Carriers Branch