Vessel Repair Entry No. NF4-4340924-0; M/V PATRIOT; P-06-15; Protest No. 2002-07-101621; 19 U.S.C. § 1466(a)

HQ H020052 May 13, 2008 VES-13-18:RR:BSTC:CCI H020052 ALS CATEGORY: Carriers Supervisory Import Specialist Vessel Repair Unit U.S. Customs and Border Protection 1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1700 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 RE: Vessel Repair Entry No. NF4-4340924-0; M/V PATRIOT; P-06-15; Protest No. 2002-07-101621; 19 U.S.C. § 1466(a) Dear Sir: This is in response to your memorandum of November 13, 2007. The memorandum forwards an application for further review of a protest filed by Interocean American Shipping Corporation (“Interocean”), seeking relief for duties assessed pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1466(a). You have asked us to review two items listed in your memorandum. Our ruling follows. FACTS: The M/V PATRIOT (the “vessel”), a U.S.-flag vessel owned by the protestant, incurred foreign shipyard costs. The vessel arrived in the port of Bayonne, New Jersey on September 24, 2006. A vessel repair entry was timely filed. No application for relief was filed. After a determination of duty, dated September 7, 2007, was issued by your office, the protestant, Interocean timely filed the subject application for further review on October 9, 2007, seeking relief pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1466(a). 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: Item 1, which refers to a “Ramp sheave survey by TTS,” as noted on the vessel repair entry (hereinafter referred to as “entry”); and Item 2, which refers to “Parts received on board: ME L/O FILTER,” as noted on the entry. We will discuss these items in turn. Item 1 The protestant submitted an invoice, dated January 24, 2007, that refers to “Service onboard in Bremerhaven” and “TTS SE service engineer… Normal working time.” The invoice also notes that there was “no cost for customer,” and that the delivery date of the work was January 24, 2007. The protestant responded to an inquiry from your office on this matter by stating “[t]here was no cost to us for the Ramp Sheave survey done by TTS because this was actually already done on 4/25/2006 under PO #06R-0273,” and “[w]e paid duty on this work under [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] (“CBP”) invoice #447079856.” You note in your memorandum that duty was in fact paid on a survey under order #06R-0273 for the subject vessel in conjunction with an arrival at Bayonne, New Jersey on May 9, 2006. Your office’s position is that relief should be denied because the protestant has failed to provide any new or additional information regarding the cost of the ramp sheave survey. The protestant contends that relief should be granted because there was no invoice available at the time cost evidence was submitted since the vender did not charge for the service. The protestant claims that the January 24, 2007 invoice was produced upon its request to verify that the vender did not charge for the service. As noted above, the listed delivery date of the service rendered for this item (January 24, 2007) is four months after the arrival date of the vessel (September 24, 2006). We have held that “an invoice or purchase order dated after the date of arrival of the vessel is not probative evidence with respect to a claim that an item listed thereon is eligible for an exemption from any provision of 19 U.S.C. § 1466.” CBP Ruling HQ 116482 (July 19, 2005). Furthermore, with the discrepancy in dates, we do not find a correlation between the submitted invoice and the protestant’s contention that no costs are associated with this item. Therefore, we find that the costs applied to this item upon entry are dutiable. Item 2 The protestant submitted an invoice, dated August 31, 2006, that refers to “automatic back flushing filter” and “lot of recommended spare parts.” The costs listed on the entry correspond with the costs on the invoice, minus a shipping charge listed on the invoice. Your office’s position is that relief should be denied because the protestant failed to segregate the costs of the articles listed on the invoice. The protestant contends that these costs should not be dutiable but does not present an argument for such. It is well-settled that when relief is sought from duties assessed, the burden is on the party asserting that relief should be granted. See Swan & Finch Company v. United States 19 U.S. 143 (1903); Bar Bea Truck Leasing Co., Inc. v. United States, 5 CIT 124, 126 (1983); Pelz-Greenstein Co. v. United States, 17 C.C.P.A. 305, T.D. 43718 (1929). See also CBP Ruling HQ 114984 (April 10, 2000). Consequently, our analysis of the dutiability of this item is limited to the submitted invoice. The invoice itself does not provide a basis for which relief from the assessed duties should be granted. Therefore, we find that the costs applied to this item upon entry are dutiable. 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 portion of this ruling. In accordance with the Protest/Petition Processing Handbook (CIS HB, January 2002, pp. 18 and 21), 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 reliquidation of the entry in accordance with the decision must be accomplished prior to mailing of the decision. Sixty days from the date of the decision the Office of 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, Glen E. Vereb Chief Cargo Security, Carriers, and Immigration Branch