Protest No. 2002-09-100007; Vessel Repair Entry No. C20-0063247-4; S/R BAYTOWN; 19 U.S.C. § 1466

HQ H073697 April 20, 2010 VES-13-18-OT:RR:BSTC:CCI H073697 JLB CATEGORY: Carriers Supervisory Import Specialist Vessel Repair Unit U.S. Customs and Border Protection 1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1700 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 RE: Protest No. 2002-09-100007; Vessel Repair Entry No. C20-0063247-4; S/R BAYTOWN; 19 U.S.C. § 1466 Dear Sir: This is in response to your memorandum of August 20, 2009, forwarding the above-referenced application for further review. We have reviewed the arguments set forth by your office and by counsel on behalf of the protestant. Our decision follows. FACTS The subject protest involves foreign shipyard work undergone by the S/R BAYTOWN. The vessel arrived at a shipyard in Singapore for various shipyard work and returned to the United States at the port of Port Angeles, Washington on August 24, 2003. A vessel repair entry was timely filed. SeaRiver Maritime, Inc. filed an application for relief of the duties assessed on the costs covered in the subject vessel repair entry. In response thereto, your office issued a decision on October 24, 2008, which denied in part, and granted in part, the application for relief. Accordingly, your office assessed vessel repair duties in the amount of $981,831.73. A timely protest was filed thereto for the duties assessed for numerous items. ISSUE Whether the costs for which the protestant seeks relief are subject to duty under 19 U.S.C. § 1466? LAW AND ANALYSIS Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1466(a), there must be a 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 trades. With respect to the applicability of this statute to the items under consideration, our determinations are set forth below. Items 2.1.1-2.1.46 The protestant asserts that these items relate to work performed by the shipyard to open the sea valves and associated components as part of the vessel’s U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) inspections. The Vessel Repair Unit (VRU) denied relief on the grounds that no corresponding ABS reports were submitted. The protestant claims that now that the ABS survey report has been included in the protest, the evidence is sufficient for a non-dutiability finding. See Protest at 1. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has held that inspections not resulting in repairs are not dutiable. See American Viking Corp. v. United States, 37 Cust. Ct. 237, 247, C.D. 1830 (1956); Headquarters Ruling Letter 110395, dated September 7, 1989. Where periodic surveys are undertaken to meet the specific requirements of, for example, a classification society or insurance carrier, the cost of the surveys is not dutiable even when dutiable repairs are effected as a result thereof. See Customs Service Decision (C.S.D.) 79-277. The burden is on the protestant to establish, by adequate, clear, and satisfactory documentary evidence, that the item is non-dutiable under 19 U.S.C. § 1466. See Headquarters Decision 116462, dated May 16, 2005. In this case, there is insufficient evidence that the work performed was related to the USCG and ABS inspections. In fact, it appears that the expenses were incurred for dutiable repair work. The ABS survey report only mentions valves once and that is in the context of a repair by stating that “longitudinal bulkhead plating fractured approx. 150 mm at upper corner of port sluice gate valve at Fr.81K was gouged out and re-welded.” See Protest at Attachment No. 4 at 4. The Refit Specification states that “each globe and gate valve” will have “the following repairs completed—All packing is to be Chesterton style 1760 Teflon graphite.” (emphasis added) See Application for Relief at Attachment 1 at 63. Not only does the Refit Specification specify that this work is repairs, the protestant has also conceded that the Chesterton whits and graphite tape packing are dutiable. See Application for Relief at Attachment 2 at Invoices 100033 and 100112. Additionally, the protestant conceded that the work performed on the butterfly valves is dutiable since SeaRiver Maritime, Inc. did not protest the VRU’s determination that Invoice WECOM 285/07/03, the complete overhaul of the butterfly valves, was dutiable. See Application for Relief at Attachment 2 at Invoice WECOM 285/07/03. Accordingly, these items are held dutiable. Item 2.2.1 The Refit Specification specifically states that the work performed included “[a]ccess each sea chest, clean, inspect and replace removals,” “[g]rind the tack weld off the nuts and remove seventeen (17) sea strainers for cleaning, repairs, inspection and painting.” Additionally, it states that the shipyard should “[h]igh pressure water wash and scrape as conditions require to remove all marine growth, rust, scale, dirt, mud, etc. to allow for inspection. This cleaning is to be accomplished as soon as is practical in order to get the necessary coats of paint in the chests for adequate protection.” See Protest at Attachment No. 3 at 86. While the protestant claims that this item relates to work performed by the shipyard to access, clear and inspect the sea chest and nozzles to prepare for the USCG and ABS inspections (see Protest at 1), it is readily apparent that the work performed is dutiable repairs/maintenance in and of itself and was performed in preparation of dutiable repairs. CBP has consistently held that cleaning is not dutiable unless it is performed as part of, in preparation for, or in conjunction with dutiable repairs or is an integral part of the overall maintenance of the vessel. See Headquarters Ruling Letter 110841, dated May 29, 1990; Headquarters Ruling Letter 111320, dated February 19, 1991. In Texaco Marine Services, Inc., and Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. v. United States, 44 F.3d 1539 (Fed. Cir. 1994), aff’g 815 F.Supp. 1484 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1993), the court stated in pertinent part as follows with respect to the reach of 19 U.S.C. § 1466: Texaco urges us to reject the Court of International Trade’s "but for" approach and to interpret "expenses of repairs" so as to exclude those expenses (e.g., expenses for clean-up and protective covering work) not incurred for work directly involved in the actual making of repairs. Such a reading has no basis in the plain language of the statute, however. Aside from the inapplicable statutory exceptions, the language "expenses of repairs" is broad and unqualified. As such, we interpret "expenses of repairs" as covering all expenses (not specifically exempted in the statute) which, but for dutiable repair work, would not have been incurred. (Emphases supplied.) CBP considers work performed to restore a part to good condition following deterioration or decay to be maintenance operations within the meaning of the term repair as used in the vessel repair statute. See Headquarters Ruling Letter 106543, dated February 27, 1984; C.I.E. 142/61, dated February 10, 1961. Given that the cleaning is being performed, in this instance, to enable the painting of the sea chests “for adequate protection,” it is clear that the cleaning is being performed in preparation for the maintenance of the vessel. See Texaco, supra. In fact, the protestant even concedes in the Refit Specification that repair work is being performed on the sea chest and strainers when it states that “[w]hen all work (repairs, coating, etc.) is complete, replace the strainers and tack weld the nuts” and “Note: call for inspection after repairs of strainer.” See Protest at Attachment No. 3 at 86 and 87. Accordingly, this item is dutiable. Item 2.4 The protestant claims that this item involved work performed by the shipyard to inspect the condition of the salt water cooling waster pieces as part of the vessel’s USCG and ABS inspections. See Protest at 2. Upon examination, though, it is readily apparent that the expenses incurred were for dutiable repair work. The Refit Specification expressly states that the intent of the work performed was “to inspect the condition of the waster pieces and replace as necessary under a separate field order” and it indicates that the S/RM representative should be promptly notified “of any adverse conditions to determine extent of additional repairs.” See Protest at Attachment No. 3 at 88. Given that the protestant concedes that any repairs performed would be “additional repairs,” and that waster pieces will be replaced if necessary, this item is held dutiable. Item 2.5 The protestant asserts that these expenses relate to work performed by the shipyard to remove, range and inspect both port and starboard anchor chains as part of the vessel’s USCG and ABS inspections. See Protest at 2. However, the Refit Specification describes the work performed on the anchor chains to include “remove all mud, rust, scale, etc.,” search for “any evidence of fractures,” “[p]aint each shot with red paint at connecting link and white paint at the corresponding number of chain links on either side of the connecting to the shot number.” It even instructs that “[u]pon completion of all necessary inspections and subsequent repairs, stow each anchor as original.” See Protest at Attachment No. 3 at 89. Consequently, this item is held to be dutiable. Item 2.5.2X Under long-standing and consistently applied administrative policy, the costs associated with a Damage-Repair Survey are dutiable since the survey is conducted to ascertain whether repairs are necessary. See Headquarters Ruling Letter 115441, dated January 16, 2002; Headquarters Ruling Letter 113826, dated February 20, 1997; see also Headquarters Ruling Letter 111756, dated January 14, 1992. Where an inspection or survey is conducted merely to ascertain the extent of damages sustained or whether repairs are deemed necessary, the costs are dutiable as part of the repairs which are accomplished. See C.I.E. 429/61; C.S.D. 79-2, 13 Cust. Bull. and Dec. 993 (1979); C.S.D. 79- 277, 13 Cust. Bull. and Dec. 1395, 1396 (1979); Texaco, supra. The protestant asserts that this item relates to work performed by the shipyard to remove, range and inspect both port and starboard anchor pins as part of the vessel’s USCG and ABS inspections. See Protest at 2. Yet this item is mentioned in the ABS Damage-Repair Survey (class) portion of the ABS Report, “Anchor – Port and starboard anchor shank retained pins fractured were renewed at this time.” See Protest at Attachment No. 4 at 7. Additionally, the Refit Specification indicates that numerous repairs were performed on the anchor chain. For Item 2.5.1, anchor chain stud link repairs, labor and materials provided are to “repair 30 anchor chain stud links. Repairs to be accomplished by welding.” See Protest at Attachment No. 3 at 90. Furthermore, the Refit Specification states that the anchors will both be removed from their chain, “[c]rop and replace with contractor furnished spares both P/S anchor pins,” “[u]pon completion of repairs, transport anchors to quay side of shipyard.” See Protest at Attachment No. 3 at 90. Accordingly, this item is held dutiable. Item 2.6 As stated above, CBP has consistently held that cleaning is not dutiable unless it is performed as part of, in preparation for, or in conjunction with dutiable repairs or is an integral part of the overall maintenance of the vessel. See Headquarters Ruling Letter 110841, dated May 29, 1990; Headquarters Ruling Letter 111320, dated February 19, 1991; Texaco, supra. CBP considers work performed to restore a part to good condition following deterioration or decay to be maintenance operations within the meaning of the term repair as used in the vessel repair statute. See Headquarters Ruling Letter 106543, dated February 27, 1984; C.I.E. 142/61, dated February 10, 1961. The protestant claims that this item relates to work performed to access, clean and wash down both chain lockers, and clear the eductor lines in preparation for the vessel’s USCG and ABS inspections. See Protest at 2. The work performed included “[o]pen the man hole under each chain locked manger. Thoroughly muck out the bottoms of both chain lockers,” “[w]ash down each manger with fresh water after the mucking is completed,” “[p]rove the eductor lines clear the Chief Mate and ABS Surveyor and USCG inspector.” See Protest at Attachment No. 3 at 91. Additionally, the Refit Specification says to “[r]eplace each zinc anode with new contractor furnished anodes.” See Protest at Attachment No. 3 at 91. Since there were repairs performed, in that each zinc anode was replaced, we find that the cleaning costs were in preparation for these repairs and therefore were dutiable. Item 2.6.1 The protestant claims that this cost is for the work performed to access, clean and wash down both chain lockers in preparation for the vessel’s USCG and ABS inspections. See Protest at 2. According to the Refit Specification, the “[c]ontractor shall grit, blast and recoat approximately one hundred (100) scattered square feet of damaged and corroded coatings per chain locker” to “[r]emove all rust stains-loose and brittle coating. Feather edges in way of removals.” Additionally, “[u]pon completion of grit blasting operations, remove all spent material from each locker,” “[w]ash each locker using fresh water,” “[a]pply two spot coats of primer to the grit blasted areas,” and “[s]pray coat each locker internals with two full coats of S/RM furnished epoxy coatings.” See Protest at Attachment No. 3 at 91 and 92. CBP has consistently held that applying a protective and preservative coating is dutiable as repairs whereas applying paint that is strictly ornamental cannot be considered dutiable "maintenance painting." See C.I.E. 518/63; C.D. 1430 (41 C.C.P.A. 57, C.A.D. 529); Headquarters Ruling Letter 110461, dated June 14, 1990; Headquarters Ruling Letter 113046, dated June 6, 1996; Headquarters Ruling Letter 114203, dated October 13, 1998; Headquarters Ruling Letter 111300, dated December 3, 1990. The United States Customs Court, in H.C. Gibbs v. United States, supports this conclusion. The court, in that case, found that painting the hull black and repainting the vessel’s name constituted “repairs” even though “it is contended that the painting in question is strictly ornamental and in no sense performed for the preservation of the vessel and, therefore, cannot be considered ‘maintenance painting,’ it remains a fact that, irrespective of the intention behind the act, the painting of the ship black in order to present a better appearance to the public had the effect of restoring the old and rusted surfaces,...” H.C. Gibbs v. United States, 28 Cust. Ct. 318, C.D. 1430 (1952), aff'd 41 C.C.P.A. 57, C.A.D. 529 (1953). In this instance, the coating is being replaced due to its deteriorated condition as evidence by the fact that the coating on the chain lockers is described as “damaged and corroded,” in need of blasting and recoating, and the rust stains need to be removed before the primer and coating can be applied to the chain lockers. See Protest at Attachment No. 3 at 92. CBP has previously held that the costs for grit blasting and replacing paint that was in a deteriorated condition are dutiable. See Headquarters Ruling Letter 116589, dated January 6, 2006. Accordingly, this item is held dutiable. Item 2.6.2 This item is for the “[c]ontractor to complete the removal and replacement, with new contractor furnished valves, for two (2) each, 1-1/2” diameter, stainless steel, 150 psi flanged globe valves on the port and starboard eductor lines.” See Protest at Attachment No. 3 at 92. The protestant states that these costs are associated with work performed by the shipyard to clear the eductor lines as part of the vessel’s USCG and ABS inspections. See Protest at 2. CBP has held that replacing a part, fitting, or structure that is performing a similar function is a repair. See Headquarters Ruling Letter 115654, dated July 5, 2002. Thus, the removal and replacement of these valves is a dutiable repair. Consequently, this item is held dutiable. Item 2.7 The protestant claims that this item is for work performed to remove the vessel’s docking plugs from each double bottom tank, ballast, and forepeak/aft peak tanks as part of the USCG and ABS inspections. See Protest at 3. It is important to note though that the ABS Damage-Repair Survey (class) portion of the ABS Report indicates that there were numerous repairs performed to the port and starboard tanks. See Protest at Attachment No. 4 at 4-7. As stated above, the costs associated with a Damage-Repair Survey are dutiable since the survey is conducted to ascertain whether repairs are necessary. See Headquarters Ruling Letter 115441, dated January 16, 2002; Headquarters Ruling Letter 113826, dated February 20, 1997; see also Headquarters Ruling Letter 111756, dated January 14, 1992. Where an inspection or survey is conducted merely to ascertain the extent of damages sustained or whether repairs are deemed necessary, the costs are dutiable as part of the repairs which are accomplished. See C.I.E. 429/61; C.S.D. 79-2, 13 Cust. Bull. and Dec. 993 (1979); C.S.D. 79- 277, 13 Cust. Bull. and Dec. 1395, 1396 (1979); Texaco, supra. Accordingly, item 2.7 is considered to be dutiable. Item 3.1.2 The work performed is described in the relevant invoices as “engineering services rendered and parts supplied to service and repair the CAPAC ICCP system on board the vessel.” See Application for Relief at Attachment 2 at Invoice OP/I000340 and Invoice OP/I000345. The protestant asserts that this item is for work performed for an inspection of the vessel’s CAPAC system to recertify the vessel under ABS reclassification rules. Further, it states that the shipyard supplied an electrician to open up and inspect all reference cells, anode assemblies, and associated equipment. See Protest at 3. We disagree. The work performed on the CAPAC system is a repair. The VRU determined that the two invoices for the “engineering services rendered and parts supplied” were dutiable and SeaRiver Maritime, Inc. did not protest these findings. In fact, the invoices specify that the CAPAC ICCP system was repaired. See Application for Relief at Attachment 2 at Invoice OP/I000340 and Invoice OP/I000345. Since the Refit Specification expressly states that “[t]he intent of this item is to have the shipyard provide electrician support for the S/RM sub-contractor,” who is performing dutiable repair work, this item is also found to be dutiable repair work. See Protest at Attachment No. 3 at 95. Thus, this item is held dutiable. Item 4.1.1-4.1.11 The protestant claims that these items, 4.1.1, 4.1.4-4.1.6, 4.1.8, 4.1.10, and 4.1.11, are related to a required ABS inspection of the vessel’s inert gas system. See Protest at 4. Clearly though, repairs were undertaken on the inert gas system. The Refit Specification refers to “[u]pon completion of all repairs,” “[m]ark up any weeping welds, or cracks found within combustion chamber or on burner front,” “[r]emove all debris and fabricate new inspection plate gasket,” and “[t]his valve will require removal of a piping spool piece immediately above valve to expedite removal of valve.” Moreover, numerous items are being disconnected, removed, cleaned and inspected for repairs, “[t]horoughly clean dome of marine growth, scale, sludge, etc., and inspect interior of dome for pitting,” “[r]inse and thoroughly clean the internal area of the deck seal housing and spark test fiberglass lining for failure.” See Protest at Attachment No. 3 at 108-113. As stated above, CBP has consistently held that cleaning is not dutiable unless it is performed as part of, in preparation for, or in conjunction with dutiable repairs or is an integral part of the overall maintenance of the vessel. See Headquarters Ruling Letter 110841, dated May 29, 1990; Headquarters Ruling Letter 111320, dated February 19, 1991; Texaco, supra. The protestant also concedes in the Refit Specification that repairs were performed, “any repairs required will be authorized by Field Order,” item 4.1.9 is for a “IGS Deck Seal Coatings Repair,” and the item following these items, Item 4.1.12, is for “IGS—Main Deck Non-Return Valve—Maintenance.” See Protest at Attachment No. 3 at 107-118. Consequently, these items are considered dutiable. Item 10.1 The protestant argues that these costs are for the inspection of the vessel’s 16” flanged angle glove stop check bilge suction valve as required by the ABS rules. See Protest at 9. The Refit Specification instructed the shipyard to “[d]isconnect, remove, and rebuild the 16” flanged angle globe stop check bilge suction valve. Valve overhaul is to be in accordance with the Standard Valve Repair Specification” and it states “upon repair completion, install valve and actuator with new gaskets and fasteners.” See Protest at Attachment No. 3 at 221. Clearly, this item is a dutiable repair. The protestant unmistakably states that the valve is to be overhauled, that it will be rebuilt, and admits that it constitutes a repair. Accordingly, this item is considered dutiable. Item 11.1 The Refit Specification specifies that “two complete hydro’s will be necessary,” as a “hydro-test will be necessary upon arrival of the vessel at the contractor’s facility and upon completion of all repair work to the cargo lines.” See Protest at Attachment No. 3 at 229. The protestant claims that this item is non-dutiable since it relates to work performed by the shipyard to perform a hydrostatic pressure test of all the vessel’s cargo, ballast piping and valves, including crude oil wash lines, as part of the USCG and ABS inspections. See Protest at 9. However, where an inspection or survey is conducted merely to ascertain the extent of damages sustained or whether repairs are deemed necessary, the costs are dutiable as part of the repairs which are accomplished. See C.I.E. 429/61; C.S.D. 79-2, 13 Cust. Bull. and Dec. 993 (1979); C.S.D. 79- 277, 13 Cust. Bull. and Dec. 1395, 1396 (1979); Texaco, supra. Given that the hydrostatic pressure test was conducted, first, to determine the extent of repairs needed to the cargo lines and, with the second test, to assert that the repairs were performed correctly, the test is dutiable. Thus, this item is dutiable. Item 11.2 The Refit Specification indicates that the ballast pump check valve inspection included “[t]ransport valves to the shop, open, disassemble and clean in accordance with the Glove Valve section of the General Specifications. Any repairs beyond the scope of the General Valve Repair Specification will be handled under a separate field order.” See Protest at Attachment No. 3 at 230. Despite the explicit mention of the repairs being performed on the valve, the protestant still claims that this item relates to work performed to open and inspect six ballast system check valves as part of the USCG and ABS inspection. See Protest at 10. In view of the fact that repairs were performed, this item is held dutiable. Item 11.5 The protestant asserts that this item is for work performed to survey all the vessel’s reach rods, bearings, and brackets in the cargo and ballast tanks as part of the USCG and ABS inspections. See Protest at 10. The Refit Specification states, however, that in performing the survey, the shipyard should “[s]ubmit findings to S/RM’s Representative. Any repairs and/or renewals are to be designated by S/RM’s Representative.” Additionally, there is a note that “[a]ny repairs will be authorized only by S/RM’s Representative issuing a field order to contractor.” In fact, the next item in the Refit Specification is Item 11.5.1X, which resulted in repairs being performed on various cargo valve reach rods. See Protest at Attachment No. 3 at 234-235. Since repairs were performed on those items surveyed, this item is held dutiable. Item 14.2 The protestant argues that opening and cleaning the bow thruster unit was necessary to perform an inspection as required by the USCG and ABS and thus is non-dutiable. See Protest at 12. Yet, in the Refit Specification, the work performed on the bow thruster unit includes “[f]urnish necessary labor and material to accomplish the following repair” with some of the items to be completed being “[r]eplace “A” shaft and pinion seals, [r]eplace blade seals and all disturbed “O” rings, [r]eplace “C” bearing housing zincs.” This item is followed by Item 14.2.1, the bow thruster zinc anode replacement, which states “[t]his item must be coordinated with the Bird Johnson representative so as not to interfere with the repairs taking place on the bow thruster unit.” See Protest at Attachment No. 3 at 300-301. Consequently, since the protestant conceded that repairs were performed on the bow thruster unit and specifies what replacements were needed, this item is dutiable. Item 15.3.1-15.3.9 Item 15.3 broadly states that the “[b]oiler valves will be repaired/replaced on an as-required basis.” The valves are listed in Items 15.3.1 through 15.3.9 with Item 15.3 providing a description of the work that was performed on the valves prior to the boiler hydrostatic test and stating that “[a]fter all repairs, inspections, etc., are complete, repack the valves with vessel supplied packing.” See Protest at Attachment No. 3 at 313-315. The protestant claims that these items relate to work performed by the shipyard to remove and prepare several auxiliary boiler valves for hydrostatic testing as part of the vessel’s USCG and ABS inspections. See Protest at 13. It is clear, however, that these items constitute repairs performed on the boiler valves prior to the boiler hydrostatic test. We note that C.S.D. 79-277 does not exempt repair work done by a shipyard in preparation of a required survey from duty. See e.g., Headquarters Ruling Letter 226520, dated February 5, 1996; Headquarters Ruling Letter 112983, dated March 14, 1995; Headquarters Ruling Letter 227150, dated December 17, 1996; Headquarters Ruling Letter 111900, dated December 17, 1991. Accordingly, these items are held dutiable. Item 15.4.1-15.4.12 The protestant offers the same claim for these items as for Items 15.3.1 through 15.3.9, which is that they relate to work performed by the shipyard to remove and prepare several auxiliary boiler valves for hydrostatic testing as part of the vessel’s USCG and ABS inspections. See Protest at 13. However, just like in Item 15.3, Item 15.4 indicates that “[b]oiler valves will be repaired/replaced on an as-required basis.” The valves are listed in Items 15.4.1 through 15.4.12 with Item 15.4 providing a description of the work that was performed on the valves prior to the boiler hydrostatic test and stating that “[a]fter all repairs, inspections, etc., are complete, repack the valves either with contractor furnished Chesterton Ribbon Style Graphite packing or a type and kind approved by the S/RM Representative.” See Protest at Attachment No. 3 at 316-319. As stated above, we note that C.S.D. 79-277 does not exempt repair work done by a shipyard in preparation of a required survey from duty. See e.g., Headquarters Ruling Letter 226520, dated February 5, 1996; Headquarters Ruling Letter 112983, dated March 14, 1995; Headquarters Ruling Letter 227150, dated December 17, 1996; Headquarters Ruling Letter 111900, dated December 17, 1991. Thus, these items are also dutiable. Item 15.9.1X The protestant asserts that this item is for work performed to setup and perform a hydrotest of the waste heat boiler as part of the vessel’s USCG and ABS inspections. See Protest at 14. Where periodic surveys are undertaken to meet the specific requirements of, for example, a classification society or insurance carrier, the cost of the surveys is not dutiable even when dutiable repairs are effected as a result thereof. See Customs Service Decision (C.S.D.) 79-277. Where an inspection or survey is conducted merely to ascertain the extent of damages sustained or whether repairs are deemed necessary, the costs are dutiable as part of the repairs which are accomplished. See C.I.E. 429/61; C.S.D. 79-2, 13 Cust. Bull. and Dec. 993 (1979); C.S.D. 79- 277, 13 Cust. Bull. and Dec. 1395, 1396 (1979); Texaco, supra. This item is within the subset of Item 15.9, titled “Waste Heat Boiler Casing Repairs.” Item 15.9 clearly states that it is for an inspection “to determine the cause of corrosion appearing at several locations on the outer casing” and authorizes repairs to be performed after the inspection. See Application for Relief at Attachment 1 at 327. Thus, the documentary evidence indicates that the inspection performed in Item 15.9 is an inspection to ascertain why the damage occurred and to determine whether repairs are necessary, making the costs of the inspection dutiable as part of the repairs. Given that Item 15.9.1X is for a test conducted to determine if the repairs performed on the waste heat boiler were adequate, it is held dutiable. Item 16.2 and 16.2.1S In the Refit Specification, the work performed for Item 16.2 involved “[r]emove the floor plates atop the valve for access” to the vessel’s cooling system three way valve, “[b]reak two (2) fourteen inch (14”) diameter flanges,” “[o]nce all interferences have been removed, break from line and remove the 14” three way cooling valve,” “[d]isassemble and inspect valve internals,” “upon completion of all surveys and repairs, reassemble valve and prove the valves work through its entire stroke,” and then reinstall the valve. See Protest at Attachment No. 3 at 333-334. The protestant argues that these items relate to work performed by the shipyard to open and inspect the vessel’s cooling system three way valve as part of the USCG and ABS inspections. See Protest at 15. It should be noted, however, that the next item on the Refit Specification, Item 16.2.1S, explicitly states “[c]ancel any work associated with the disassembly and rebuild of existing” cooling system three-way valve, “[i]n lieu of rebuild, exchange valve with SRM furnished spare unit.” See Protest at Attachment No. 3 at 334. It is readily apparent that the valve was in a deteriorating condition. The protestant has not met its burden of proof in demonstrating that the valve was in good condition at the time it was replaced, thus, these items are held to be dutiable repairs. Item 20.6X This item involves the work performed by the shipyard to test and deliver to the S/RM Representative copies of the megger readings on all the vessel’s electrical equipment including generators, motors, controllers, power circuits, wiring circuits, etc. See Application for Relief at Attachment 1 at 446-447. The protestant asserts that this item relates to work performed to comply with the USCG and ABS inspections. See Protest at 16-17. However, Item C indicates that the shipyard should “[e]stimate to remove and repair twenty (20) grounds from circuits as designated by S/RM’s Representative.” See Application for Relief at Attachment 1 at 447. Since this clearly demonstrates that the megger readings were conducted to ascertain the repairs needed, this item is considered dutiable. HOLDING After a thorough review of the record, the protest is denied as detailed above. In accordance with the Protest/Petition Processing Handbook (HB 3500-08A, December 2007, pp. 26 and 29), 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