Vessel Repair Entry No. V72-1750000-8; SS LURLINE; Protest No. 2002-11-100090; 19 U.S.C. § 1466(a)

HQ H218511 July 26, 2012 VES-13-18:RR:BSTC:CCI H1218511 ALS CATEGORY: Carriers Supervisory Import Specialist U.S. Customs and Border Protection 1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1700 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 RE: Vessel Repair Entry No. V72-1750000-8; SS LURLINE; Protest No. 2002-11-100090; 19 U.S.C. § 1466(a) Dear Sir: This is in response to your memorandum of May 8, 2012. The memorandum forwards an Application for Further Review of a Protest, filed on behalf of Matson Navigation Company (“Protestant” or “Matson”), seeking relief for duties assessed pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1466(a). You have asked us to review numerous items listed in your memorandum. Our ruling follows. FACTS: The SS LURLINE (the “vessel”), a vessel owned by the Protestant, incurred foreign shipyard costs. The vessel arrived in the port of Long Beach, California on August 20, 2008. A vessel repair entry was timely filed. The Protestant filed an application for relief from duties on the entry. Upon review of that filing, your office determined that the application for relief should be granted in part and denied in part, and notified the Protestant of that decision via a letter dated April 29, 2011. The Protestant then filed the subject Application for Further Review (AFR), seeking additional relief. ISSUE: Whether the costs for which the Protestant seeks relief are dutiable under 19 U.S.C. § 1466(a). LAW AND ANALYSIS: Title 19, United States Code, section 1466(a) provides in pertinent part for the payment of an ad valorem duty of 50 percent of the cost of “. . . equipments, or any part thereof, including boats, purchased for, or the repair parts or materials to be used, or the expenses of repairs made in a foreign country upon a vessel documented under the laws of the United States . . .” The following items are at issue: Items 119, 120, 121, 122: Pacific Marine & Ind. These items are dutiable as parts of vessel equipment. The Protestant contends that these items are parts of Instruments of International Traffic (IITs) and therefore should be non-dutiable pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1322 and 19 CFR 10.41a. An Application for Further Review of Protest is not the appropriate procedure by which to obtain a determination on whether or not any equipment, or parts of any equipment, qualifies as an IIT or as accessories of an IIT. In any case, such determinations are made on a case-by-case basis. The proper procedures for seeking such a determination are set forth in 19 CFR 177.2. Absent any evidence to the contrary, these items remain dutiable as parts of vessel equipment. Givens & Johnston, PLLC, letter dated January 26, 2012: Request for Consideration of Additional Argument to Pending Protest You note that the items addressed in the above-referenced letter were not addressed in the original AFR, dated October 25, 2011. You also note that your office received the subject letter on January 27, 2012, 273 days after the AFR filing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 174.14(a), a protest may be amended at any time prior to the expiration of the period within which the protest may be filed under 19 CFR 174.12(e). Pursuant to 19 CFR 174.12(e), a protest must be filed, in accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 1514, within 180 days of a decision relating to an entry made on or after December 18, 2004. You ask if the above-referenced letter is timely filed. The subject entry was filed on August 20, 2008. The decision relating to the subject entry that started the section 174.12(e) filing period is your April 29, 2011 letter to the Protestant. The expiration date for this protest filing period was October 26, 2011. As noted, the Protestant timely filed the subject AFR on October 25, 2011. The above-referenced letter, however, was filed after October 26, 2011. Therefore, in accordance with section 174.14(a), the above-referenced letter was not timely filed as an amendment to the subject AFR. Consequently, the items discussed therein fall outside the scope of this review. HOLDING: Following a thorough analysis of the facts as well as of the law and applicable precedents, we have determined that the protest with respect to the items considered above should be denied as specified in the Law and Analysis section of this ruling. In accordance with the Protest/Petition Processing Handbook (CIS HB, January 2007), you are to mail this decision, together with the Customs Form 19, to the protestant no later than 60 days from the date of this letter. Any final duty determination of this entry in accordance with this decision must be accomplished prior to mailing of the decision. Sixty days from the date of the decision, Regulations and Rulings will make the decision available to CBP personnel, and to the public on the CBP Home Page on the World Wide Web at www.cbp.gov, by means of the Freedom of Information Act, and other methods of public distribution. Sincerely, George Frederick McCray Supervisory Attorney-Advisor/Chief Cargo Security, Carriers and Immigration Branch Office of International Trade, Regulations & Rulings U.S. Customs and Border Protection