Vessel Repair; Application for Relief; Vessel: SEA-LAND DEVELOPER V-137/172 Vessel Repair Entry No. 906-7500674-7 Date of Arrival: September 17, 1992 Date of Entry: September 17, 1992 Port of Arrival: Tacoma, Washington

HQ 112600 February 16, 1993 VES-13-18-CO;R:IT:C 112600 DEC CATEGORY: Carriers Deputy Regional Director Commercial Operations Pacific Region One World Trade Center Long Beach, California 90731 RE: Vessel Repair; Application for Relief; Vessel: SEA-LAND DEVELOPER V-137/172 Vessel Repair Entry No. 906-7500674-7 Date of Arrival: September 17, 1992 Date of Entry: September 17, 1992 Port of Arrival: Tacoma, Washington Dear Sir: This is in response to your memorandum dated February 9, 1993, which forwards for our consideration an application for relief filed in connection with the above-referenced vessel. Our findings are set forth below. FACTS: The SEA-LAND DEVELOPER is owned by the Connecticut National Bank and operated by Sea Land Service, Inc. It is an American flag container vessel. The vessel departed from Tacoma, Washington May 21, 1991, and returned to Tacoma, Washington september 17, 1992. While abroad, the vessel was repaired in a foreign shipyard. More particularly, the M/V Green BAY had its 3 cm radar repaired and a wheelhouse window replaced while it was docked at Yokohama, Japan from July 7, 1992 through July 9, 1992. In addition, while docked at Yokohama & Yokkaichi from September 22, 1992 through September 25, 1992, the M/V GREEN BAY had its S- Band radar repaired. An application for relief dated December 3, 1992, was timely filed seeking relief from vessel repair duties assessed on the above-referenced foreign repairs. In its application for relief, the vessel's owners state that the repairs were made during prior voyages and have raised the Customs six month rule as a defense to the assessment of duty. -2- ISSUE: Whether the "one-round voyage" rule with respect to 19 U.S.C. 1466 renders the foreign vessel repairs at Yokohama nondutiable as a casualty. 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. Furthermore, Title 19, United States Code, Section 1466(d)(1) provides that the Secretary of Treasury is authorized to remit, or refund duties if the owner or master of the vessel provides good and sufficient evidence that the vessel was compelled by stress of weather or other casualty to put into such foreign port to make repairs to secure the safety and seaworthiness of the vessel to enable her to reach her port of destination. If satisfactory evidence is furnished clearly showing any part of a vessel to have been repaired and/or serviced just prior to the commencement of a voyage from a United States port, we have held that it is reasonable to assume that the part is seaworthy for a round voyage, foreign and return. However, if the evidence indicates some other reason necessitated the repairs during the voyage, failure of that part to function within six months after the repair and/or servicing in the United States may be considered a casualty within the meaning of section 1466(d)(2). Furthermore, remission of duty under the statute in these circumstances is limited to duty on the essential, minimum foreign repairs to the part. T.D. 71-83 (38). The term, "casualty," as it is used in the statute, has been interpreted as something which, like stress of weather, comes with unexpected force or violence, such as fire, explosion or collision. Dollar Steamship Lines, Inc. v. United States, 5 Cust. Ct. 28-29, C.D. 362 (1940). In this sense, a "casualty" arises from an identifiable event of some sort. In the absence of evidence of such a casualty event, we must consider the repair to have been necessitated by normal wear and tear. C.I.E. 1829/58; Customs Ruling Letter 106159 LLB (September 8, 1983). -3- The application for relief states that on voyages 37 and 38 of the subject vessel foreign repairs to its two radar systems were made. The repairs from voyage 37 to the 3 cm radar were completed during February 11, 1992 through February 19, 1992, in Nagoya, Japan and are documented on entry number C30-0010182-5. No authenticated supporting documents were submitted with respect to the alleged repairs from voyage 38. Additionally, the one-round-voyage rule which the applicant relies upon as a basis for relief only applies to repairs made in the United States. Finally, the applicant submitted a log from voyage 39 which is irrelevant to this inquiry. The July 1, 1992, log indicates that the 3 cm radar was lost due to a casualty. Further, the master's statement corroborates this allegation. Consequently, remission is granted with respect to duty on the foreign repair of the 3 cm radar. No supporting or relevant documentation was submitted justifying remission of duty on the wheelhouse window replacement nor the S-Band radar repair. Consequently, duty is owed absent additional evidence and proof of a bona fide basis for remission. HOLDING: After thorough review of the evidence presented, and as detailed in the Law and Analysis portion of this ruling, the application for relief is granted with respect to the repairs to the 3 cm radar, and denied with respect to the S-Band radar and wheelhouse window. Sincerely, Acting Chief