Protest No. 2704-93-100072; Vessel Repair Entry No. C27- 0061073-9; SEA-LAND INNOVATOR; Casualty; Crosshead Bearings; 19 U.S.C. 1466(d)(1).

HQ 112636 May 3, 1993 VES-13-18-CO:R:IT:C 112636 DEC CATEGORY: Carriers Deputy Regional Director Commercial Operations Pacific Region One World Trade Center Long Beach, California 90831 RE: Protest No. 2704-93-100072; Vessel Repair Entry No. C27- 0061073-9; SEA-LAND INNOVATOR; Casualty; Crosshead Bearings; 19 U.S.C. 1466(d)(1). Dear Sir: This is in response to your memorandum dated March 16, 1993, transmitting the above referenced protest and supporting documentation for our review. Our ruling on this matter is set out below. FACTS: The SEA-LAND INNOVATOR arrived at Los Angeles, California, on December 17, 1991. An application seeking relief from vessel repair duties was filed on March 19, 1992. The vessel operator received an extension to file making this filing timely. Relief was denied for insufficient evidentiary support to sustain a finding of a casualty. This protest stems from the vessel operator's repeated claim that the vessel suffered a casualty. The event at issue occurred on November 24, 1991, when the vessel was bound for Hakata, Japan. The vessel's Graviner 4 Mist Detector Alarm sounded which indicated that the vapors in the crankcase were approaching their lower explosive limit. The vessel, at reduced speed, was diverted to Kobe, Japan, to address the complications discovered in the crankcase which the alarm indicated. The protestant provided an informative narrative providing Customs with valuable technical insight into understanding the circumstances relating to the crankcase complications. The protestant noted that a Posa Marine Services report concluded that the most likely cause of the damage was the loss of crosshead lube oil pressure. A second possible cause noted was normal wear and tear. The protestant, however, maintains that this was not the cause because an investigation into their other vessels revealed that there has not been one other similar failure. -2- LAW AND ANALYSIS: Title 19, United States Code, section 1466 provides, in paragraph (1), subsection (d), that duty may be remitted if good and sufficient evidence is furnished establishing that the vessel was compelled by stress of weather or other casualty to be put into a foreign port to make repairs to secure the safety and seaworthiness of the vessel to enable her to reach her port of destination. It is Customs position that "port of destination" means a port in the United States. 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. 23, 29, C.D. 362 (1940). Consequently, a casualty arises from a similar identifiable event. In Dollar Steamship Lines, the issue before the Customs Court was whether blankets purchased based on the vessel doctor's recommendation constituted dutiable equipment or a casualty as defined under section 446 of the Tariff Act 1930 (current version at 19 U.S.C. 1466 (1992)). The blankets were purchased to avert the spread of influenza and meningitis from the passengers to the vessel's crew, potentially incapacitating them so that they would be incapable of performing their duties. The court held that "the statute [vessel repair statute] provides exemption from duty only in the event of a casualty, and a calamitous event which had been averted through the forethought of the ship's officers is not a casualty." Id. Customs finds that the circumstances surrounding the SEA-LAND INNOVATOR's complications submitted for our review to be analogous. Regardless of the actual cause of the damage done to the vessel's crankcase, the fact remains that no casualty as interpreted in the statute occurred. To the contrary, a calamitous event (i.e. an explosion) was averted. HOLDING: After thorough review of the evidence presented, and as detailed in the Law and Analysis portion of this ruling, this protest seeking remission of vessel repair duties is hereby denied. Sincerely, Stuart P. Seidel Director, International Trade Compliance Division