Vessel repair; application; insufficient Vessel: OMI DYNACHEM V-134 Vessel Repair Entry No. 203-0003254-5 Date of Arrival: July 26, 1990 Port of Arrival: Bellingham, Washington

HQ 111444 January 28, 1991 VES-13-18-CO:R:IT:C 111444 KVS CATEGORY: Carriers Chief, Technical Branch Commercial Operations Division 1 World Trade Center Long Beach, CA 90831 RE: Vessel repair; application; insufficient Vessel: OMI DYNACHEM V-134 Vessel Repair Entry No. 203-0003254-5 Date of Arrival: July 26, 1990 Port of Arrival: Bellingham, Washington Dear Sir: This is in response to your memorandum of December 6, 1990, which forwards for our consideration an application for relief from vessel repair duties filed in connection with the OMI DYNACHEM, vessel repair entry no. 203-0003254-5. Our findings are set forth below. FACTS: The DYNACHEM, an American-flag vessel, underwent foreign shipyard operations at a Canadian shipyard from July 16, 1990, until July 22, 1990. The vessel arrived in the United States at Bellingham, Washington, on July 26, 1990, and made timely entry on August 1, 1990. The application for relief currently under consideration was timely filed on September 24, 1990. ISSUE: Whether an application for relief from vessel repair duties which does not comply with the requirements delineated in the Customs Regulations may be considered by Customs on its merits. - 2 - LAW AND ANALYSIS: Title 19, United States Code, section 1466(a) provides, in pertinent part, for payment of duty in the amount of 50 percent ad valorem on the cost of foreign repairs to vessels engaged, intended to engage, or documented under the laws of the United States to engage in the foreign or coastwise trade. The Customs Regulations contain specific procedural and content requirements regarding the filing of an application for relief from vessel repair duties. Section 4.14(d)(1)(i), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 4.14(d)(1)(i)), in addressing requirements relating to the form and content of an application states: If an application for relief is filed by a corporation, it shall be signed by an authorized corporate officer. Furthermore, section 4.14(d)(1)(iv), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 4.14(d)(1)(iv), in addressing requirements relating to the submission of documentary evidence states: All documents submitted in support of an application must be certified by the master or owner of the vessel to be originals or copies of originals. If a vessel is owned or operated by a corporation, the master or an authorized corporate officer shall certify the documents. In case currently before us, the application submitted is remiss in its compliance with the regulations set forth above. The application was signed not by an authorized corporate officer, but by a member of the engineering department of the corporate owner with unknown authority to execute documents, and no certification as to the authenticity of the submitted documents has been provided. This is not the first instance of non-compliance by this vessel owner. The same deficiencies were present in a prior submission in which the vessel owner was duly notified of such deficiencies and given an opportunity to cure. The vessel owner neglected to do so. In the absence of compliance with the applicable Customs regulations, an application for relief will not be considered by Customs on the merits. Accordingly, the application for relief is denied in full. - 3 - HOLDING: An application for relief from vessel repair duties which does not substantively comply with the requirements delineated in the Customs Regulations may not be considered by Customs on the merits. Sincerely, B. James Fritz Chief Carrier Rulings Branch