Vessel Repair Entry No. 110-0103985-5; SEA-LAND MARINER; V-103; 19 U.S.C.  1466

HQ 111586 March 15, 1995 VES-13-18-CO:R:IT:C 111586 GEV CATEGORY: Carriers Deputy Regional Director Commercial Operations Pacific Region 1 World Trade Center Long Beach, California 90831 RE: Vessel Repair Entry No. 110-0103985-5; SEA-LAND MARINER; V-103; 19 U.S.C.  1466 Dear Sir: This is in response to a memorandum from the Chief, Technical Branch, Commercial Operations Division, dated March 13, 1991, forwarding a petition for review of Headquarters ruling no. 111226. Our findings on this matter are set forth below. FACTS: The SEA-LAND MARINER is a U.S.-flag vessel owned and operated by Sea-Land Service, Inc. ("Sea-Land"). The subject vessel had foreign shipyard work performed on her in Japan, Hong Kong, Kaohsiung and Singapore in January and February of 1990. The vessel arrived in the United States at the port of Tacoma, Washington on February 26, 1990. A vessel repair entry was filed on the date of arrival. The applicant requested and received from the San Francisco Vessel Repair Liquidation Unit a 30-day extension of time in which to file an application for relief and supporting documentation. The application and supporting documentation were not filed within this authorized time period. Consequently, Headquarters ruling no. 111226, dated October 9, 1990 held that the application for relief should be denied as untimely without consideration as to its merits. The Chief, Technical Branch, Commercial Operations, in a letter dated November 21, 1990, so informed Sea-Land of Customs decision in this matter by enclosing a copy of ruling no. 111226. In addition, the letter informed Sea-Land of their right to file a petition for review of Customs decision under  4.14(d)(2), Customs Regulations. - 2 - In response to Customs letter of November 21, 1990, a letter from Sea-Land was received by Customs on December 20, 1990, with supporting documentation. Sea-Land requests that this letter be considered a timely petition for review pursuant to  4.14(d)(2), Customs Regulations, so that the subject vessel repair entry may be reconsidered in light of Sea-Land's supporting documentation and claims for relief . ISSUE: Whether the letter from Sea-Land received by Customs on December 20, 1990, is considered to be a timely petition for review pursuant to  4.14(d)(2), Customs Regulations so that Sea-Land's claims for relief stated therein and the accompanying documentation may be considered on their merits. LAW AND ANALYSIS: Title 19, United States Code,  1466 (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 the foreign or coastwise trade, or vessels intended to engage in such trade. The Customs Regulations promulgated pursuant to 19 U.S.C.  1466 are set forth in title 19, Code of Federal Regulations,  4.14 (19 CFR  4.14). Specifically,  4.14(d)(2), Customs Regulations, provides, in pertinent part, that if an applicant is dissatisfied with the decision on its application for relief, the applicant may file a petition for review of that decision. Section 4.14(d)(2)(ii) provides that a petition for review may be "...filed with the appropriate vessel repair liquidation unit within 30 days after the date of the written notice to the party of the decision on the application for relief..." It is readily apparent that Sea-Land's letter received by Customs on December 20, 1990, meets this criterion. Accordingly, the letter will be considered as a timely petition for relief pursuant to  4.14(d)(2), Customs Regulations, and the merits thereof will be considered in light of the entire record (i.e., all supporting documentation Customs has received regarding this entry).  - 3 - HOLDING: The letter from Sea-Land received by Customs on December 20, 1990, is considered to be a timely petition for review pursuant to  4.14(d)(2), Customs Regulations so that Sea-Land's claims for relief stated therein and the accompanying documentation may be considered on their merits. Sincerely, Arthur P. Schifflin Chief Carrier Rulings Branch