HQ 112444

May 22, 1996

VES-13-18-RR:IT:EC 112444 BEW/PH

CATEGORY: Carriers

Chief, Liquidation Section

U. S. Customs Service

P. O. Box 2450

San Francisco, California 94126

RE: Vessel Repair; Application for relief; M/V PRESIDENT

LINCOLN, Voyage 87; Entry No. C27-0061057-2; Modifications;

Inspection; Staging; Cleaning; Survey; Air Scavenger Space;

Maintenance; Timeliness; 19 CFR 4.14(d); 19 U.S.C. 1466

Dear Sir:

This letter is in response to your memorandum dated August 25,

1992, which forwarded for our review an application for relief

from duties relating to the above-referenced vessel repair entry.

Our ruling follows.

FACTS:

The vessel PRESIDENT LINCOLN, a United States-flag vessel owned

and operated by American President Lines (APL) of Oakland,

California, arrived at the port of San Pedro, California, on

November 26, 1991. A vessel repair entry was timely filed

(November 27, 1991, according to Customs records). According to

the vessel repair entry and other documents in the file, the

vessel underwent certain work at the China Shipbuilding

Corporation shipyard in Kaohsiung, Taiwan.

The vessel operator requested a 30 day extension to file an

application for relief (see 19 CFR 4.14(d)) and the extension was

granted until March 27, 1992. On February 6, 1992, the vessel

operator submitted an application for remission of duty (dated

February 15, 1992) on the cleaning of scavenger spaces. On March

26, 1992, the vessel operator submitted an application for

remission of duty (dated the same date) on other invoice items

listed below (except item 530)). On April 7, 1992, the vessel

operator submitted an application for remission of duty (dated

April 2, 1992), stated to \"supplement\" the March 26, 1992,

application, for item 530 (bow thruster space piping

modification).

In the above-referenced applications, the applicant identified

certain items as non-dutiable modification work, and claimed that

certain other items were non-dutiable as consisting of staging,

inspection, or cleaning. You requested that we review certain

items in the entry and provide you with our determination as to

the dutiability of those items. Those items, with descriptions

and other information from the invoice and other materials in the

file, are listed below:

The following items have been referred for our review.

Item no. Invoice description, etc.

509 Bow thruster survey. The portions of this

item in controversy are stated to consist of:

\(1\) erection of and removal of staging; and

\(2\) opening and closing blade hatch for

working. The remaining portions in this item

are conceded to be dutiable. The time,

material, and cost for item (1) (staging) are

segregated from time, material, and costs for

the other items, but the remaining time,

material, and costs are not segregated.

According to ABS Survey KS 7365-A, the

thrusters were cleaned as necessary, examined

and considered satisfactory. There is no

indication in the ABS Surveys that the survey

was performed to ascertain the extent of

damages.

509.3 Bow thruster tunnel bar removal. This item is

stated to consist of the removal of bow

thruster tunnel bars from tunnel entrances,

the grounding of tunnel and hull surfaces

flush and smooth, and the carrying out of a

dye check for ABS inspection. This item is

not referred to in the pertinent ABS Reports

(KS 7365-A and KS 7365-B).

514 Installation of lashing padeyes. This item is

stated to consist of cropping D-rings and

installation of new solid lashing padeyes as

per drawing 8616512-05-30 Alt. 2 (supplied

with the Application). The padeyes are stated

to change the container lashing system to

increase the allowable stack weight of on-deck

containers, improve operating efficiency, and

reduce maintenance and repair of deck/pedestal

fittings. This item is referred to in ABS

Report KS 7365-G as \"Installation of Lashing

Padeyes.\" In item 514 and many other items in

the invoice, it is stated that \"\[d\]estroied

area were disc-grinded or sandsweeped then

applied the coats as the specification.\"

515 Removal and replacement of hatch covers. This

item is stated to consist of the handling and

crane service for inspection of the hatch

covers. Included in this item are the

arrangement of blocks for each hatch cover,

the provision of riggers and crane to remove

the hatch covers, and the welding of temporary

\"lifting pieces\" for three of the hatch

covers. ABS Report KS 7365-G reports on

\"hatch covers and hatch coamings modification

and repair \...\"

515.1 Hatch coamings. The portions of this item in

controversy (\"modification of longitudinal

hatch coaming at expansion joint\" and

\"longitudinal hatch coaming repaired at row

12, aft (P/S)\") are stated to consist of the

modification of the hatch coaming as per

drawing HEC8803-4 in the first case and the

cropping and renewal of the longitudinal hatch

coaming top plate as per drawing HEC9106-3 in

the second case. In the case of row 12, this

work is described as repair in ABS Report KS

7365-G (hatch covers and hatch coamings

modification and repair survey) (this ABS

report distinguishes between repairs and

modifications). In the same ABS Report, we

could find no reference to the work at the

expansion joint.

515.2 Hatch covers. The portions of this item in

controversy ((1) modification of bearing pads,

\(2\) modification of cover no. 8 (referred to

in the invoice as \"hatch cover #8(P/S)\") in

way of 20 foot stowage outboard, (3)

modification of hatch covers 2 - 9 starboard

of sliding base socket, (4) modification of

hatch covers 10 and 11, (5) modifications to

hatch cover bearing pads) are stated to

consist of modifications for which drawings

are supplied ((1) - drawing 9106-5, (2) -

drawing 9106-7, (3) - drawing 9106-6, (4) -

drawing 9106-2) and, in the case of (5),

modifications to reinforce the hatch cover

bearing pad with additional \"stifference\"

behind the bearing pad. In the case of the

bearing pads the ABS report describing this

work (ABS Report KS 7365-G) states that \"\[a\]ll

bearing pads were re-positioned at this time

on hatch cover Nos. 1 \[through\] 9 to take over

existing worn down ones\". In the case of

cover no. 8, this work is described in ABS

Report KS 7365-G as modifications (adding two

new girders) and there is no reference to

repairs. In the case of covers 2 - 9 (sliding

base sockets), this work is described in ABS

Report KS 7365-G as modifications

(installation of sliding twistlock

foundations) and there is no reference to

repairs. In the case of hatch cover 10 and

11, this work is described in ABS Report KS

7365-G as \"Modifications/Repairs\" (as noted

above, the ABS Report distinguishes between

modifications and repairs). In the case of

the reinforcement of the hatch cover bearing

pads, we could find no reference in the ABS

Report.

516 Tailshaft survey. The portions of this item

in controversy are stated to consist of (1)

erection and removal of staging and various

inspections; and (2) removal and

reinstallation of the rope guard, welding and

cutting lifting pieces for propeller removal,

disconnection of the propeller, certain tests

and checks, force fitting the propeller,

cleaning certain tanks, and other work (the

applicant concedes that the portion of this

item consisting of the grinding smooth of an

area of pitting and/or corrosion on the

tailshaft is dutiable, as repairs). There is

no indication in the ABS Survey (KS 7365-B)

that the survey was performed to ascertain the

extent of damages.

519 Modification at bulkhead at frame Nos. 59 &

61\. Both this item and item 519.1 (below) are

stated to be \"modification\[s\] \... as a

consequence of failures arising from a basic

design deficiency\[;\] \[the initial design is

stated to have\] lacked the fundamental

requirement of structural continuity \...\" In

regard to this item and item 519.1, there are

references in the ABS Survey Reports to

repairs which appear to relate to these items

(Report KS 7365-G refers to \"Repairs and

Modifications of Longitudinal Bulkhead

Transition Between Fr. 60 and Transverse

Bulkhead at Fr. 65; Report KS 7365-D notes

Report KS 7365-G for the detail of \"repairs\"

for transverse watertight bulkhead at fr. 65;

and there are references to the \"buckled

transverse floor in way at fr. 61\" in Report

KS 7365).

519.1 Modification at bulkhead at frame Nos. 61 &

65\. See item 519, above.

520 Fuel oil tank cleaning. This item is stated

to include the cleaning of the tanks to be

safe for men and surveys (disposal of oily

water or dead oil, removal of sludge, and

supplying of chemical cleaner). The ABS

Report for this item (Report KS 7365-D) refers

to repairs to the following tanks among the

tanks enumerated in this item: fuel oil wing

tank 3A (starboard), fuel oil wing tank 1

(starboard), and fuel oil wing tank 1 (port).

Report KS 7365-D refers to Report KS 7365-F

for details of the repairs. There is no

reference to fuel oil wing tank 3A in Report

KS 7365-F, but the report describes the

finding of fractures and the repair thereof in

regard to fuel oil tank no. 1 on the port and

starboard side (the frames for these tanks

indicate that they are the same as cited

above). Time, material, and costs are not

segregated in this item.

521 Relocate aft hose crane. This item is stated

to consist of cutting off and removal of

table, locker, and support, draining and

renewal of hydraulic oil, removal and

installation of newly made handrail, filling

hydraulic oil (supplied by yard), and erection

and removal of staging (only the last portion

is segregated). The reason given for the

relocation is \"to improve the accessibility,

reliability and to extend the life of the

equipment \[as\] \[i\]t was an initial design

deficiency to place such equipment in an area

exposed to weather and exhaust stack gasses.\"

We could find no reference related to this

item in the ABS Reports in the file.

522 Stores & hose crane. This item is stated to

consist of the replacement of the rubber hoses

on stores and hose cranes with stainless steel

tubing and fittings. We could find no

reference related to this item in the ABS

Reports in the file.

525 Ballast tank inspection & survey. This item

is stated to consist of opening up bolted

manhole covers for the tanks, testing oxygen

contents, furnishing temporary lighting and

ventilator for one of the tanks, and providing

qualified inspectors to inspect the tanks.

The ABS Report for this item (Report KS 7365-D) refers to repairs to the
following tanks

among the tanks enumerated in this item: deep

water ballast tanks 6B (port and starboard).

Report KS 7365-D refers to Report KS 7365 for

details of the repairs. The latter report

refers to outstanding recommendation in a

November 8, 1989, report for this vessel and

describes the permanent \"repairs\" made to the

vessel \"at this time.\" Time, material, and

costs are not segregated in this item.

525.1 Ballast tank inspection. The portions of this

item in controversy ((1), (2), and (3)) are

stated to consist of cleaning out, (disposing

of oily water, removal of sludge, and

supplying chemical cleaner, and other cleaning

operations) as well as replacement of broken

and missing cover studs and bolts (No. 6A D.B.

tank starboard) and replacement of new

grommets (66 pieces supplied by the yard).

The ABS Report for this item (Report KS 7365-D) refers to repairs to
deep upper fuel oil

tank No. 2 (port) among the tanks enumerated

in this item. Report KS 7365-D refers to

Report KS 7365-F for details of the repairs.

The latter report states that the tank top

plating for that tank \"was found holed and

heavily wasted and was partly cropped and

renewed \...\". Time, material, and costs are

not segregated in this item.

530 Bow thruster space piping. This item is

stated to consist of rerouting bilge piping.

We could find no reference related to this

item in the ABS Reports.

531 Anchor chain & chain locker. The portions of

this item in controversy ((1) and (3)) are

stated to consist of (portion (1)) ranging out

anchor chains for examination, washing down

chain to removal scale and foreign materials

to allow for examination, calibration of

chains, restowing chains, and arranging crane

to chains; and (portion (3)) opening manhole

cover of chain lockers, cleaning chain

lockers, mud removal, and closing manhole

cover with new gaskets. The applicant

concedes that portion (2) of this item is

dutiable. ABS Reports KS 7365-A and KS 7365-D

pertain to this item. There is no indication

in the Reports that the survey was performed

to ascertain the extent of damages.

532 Main engine sump survey. This item is stated

to consist of opening manhole covers, cleaning

and drying all engine parts and sump interior

(removal and disposal of dead oil, removal of

sludge, supplying chemical cleaner) and

closing manhole covers after survey. The

foregoing is consistent with the ABS Report

pertaining to this item (Report KS 7365-E).

There is no indication in the Report that the

survey was performed to ascertain the extent

of damages.

556 Salt water piping. This item is stated to

consist of gauging and recording all overboard

pipes and all pipes below floor plating in

narrow spaces and tank. In regard to this

item and item 561 (below), the only reference

we could find related to these items in the

ABS reports was for the survey of \"\[a\]ll

openings to the sea \...\" in Report KS 7365-E.

No repairs are referred to in this regard in

that Report.

561 No. 1, 2, & 3 sumps. This item is stated to

consist of opening and closing manhole covers,

cleaning (removal of sludge and supplying

chemical cleaner) the tank to be safe for men

and surveys.

8 Cleaning air scavenger space. This item is

stated to consist of opening main engine

scavenger space access doors for complete

cleaning, removal of all oily deposits and

waste material, and (upon completion of

inspection by vessel engineers), closing up of

all access doors. Also included are crating,

packing and shipment, tool rental, fees or

taxes, transportation of materials and men,

meals of labor crews, and materials and

equipment (rags and PVC bags).

ISSUES:

Whether the work described in the FACTS portion of this ruling is

dutiable under the vessel repair statute (19 U.S.C. 1466).

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Initially we note, in regard to the timeliness of the application

for relief in this matter, that the Customs Regulations governing

such applications for relief (see 19 CFR 4.14(d)(1)(ii)), issued

under 19 U.S.C. 1466, require the application for relief, with

supporting evidence, to be filed within 90 days (with authority

for an extension of 30 additional days) from the first arrival of

the vessel. As stated above, an extension of the 90-day period

was granted until March 27, 1992. Therefore, the application for

relief (including the February 15 and March 26, 1992, letters and

materials submitted with them) was timely. However, since the

cited Customs Regulation requires the application for relief,

with supporting evidence, to be filed within the time period, and

since there is no provision for supplementing the application for

relief after expiration of the time period in regard to an issue

not previously raised, the April 2, 1992, letter (filed April 7,

1992\) was untimely and is not being considered (see ruling HQ

111688).

Under 19 U.S.C. 1466:

The equipments, or any part thereof \... 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 to engage in the foreign

or coasting trade, or a vessel intended to be employed in

such trade, shall, on the first arrival of such vessel in

any port of the United States, be liable to entry and the

payment of an ad valorem duty of 50 per centum on the cost

thereof in such foreign country.

Section 1466 also provides, generally, for remission or refund of

such duties if it is established that the purchases or repairs

were compelled by stress of weather or other casualty, that the

equipments or repairs were manufactured or produced in the United

States and the labor necessary to install them or make the

repairs was performed by United States residents or members of

the regular crew of the vessel, or that the equipments or

materials or labor were used as dunnage for cargo, or similar

purposes. In addition, section 1466 provides for the exemption

from vessel repair duties for certain materials with respect to a

vessel which arrives in a United States port two years or more

after its last departure from a United States port, and for

certain materials for LASH (Lighter Aboard Ship) barges, or

certain spare parts or materials subject to various specified

conditions. The Customs Regulations issued under section 1466

are found in 19 CFR 4.14.

The Customs Service has issued many rulings applying and

interpreting 19 U.S.C. 1466. See, e.g., HQ 112851, dated March

22, 1996. Ruling HQ 112851, includes statements of the general

rules for the determination of what are modifications to the hull

and fittings of a vessel (held not to be dutiable under section

1466), and the dutiability under section 1466 of the cost of

inspections or surveys done by the American Bureau of Shipping

(ABS). Generally, qualifying modifications to the hull and

fittings of a vessel involve a permanent incorporation into the

hull or superstructure of a vessel, provide an improvement or

enhancement in operation or efficiency of the vessel, and may not

involve the replacement of a current part, fitting, or structure

which is not in good working order.

In regard to surveys or inspections, the general rule is that a

survey undertaken to meet the specific requirements of a

governmental entity, classification society, or insurance carrier

is not dutiable even when dutiable repairs are effected as a

result of a survey. When an inspection or survey is conducted to

ascertain the extent of damages sustained or whether repairs are

necessary, the costs are dutiable as part of the repairs which

are accomplished. The LAW AND ANALYSIS portion of ruling HQ

112851 is incorporated by reference into this ruling, in regard

to its description of the interpretation of these issues (i.e.,

the dutiability of modifications to the hull and fittings of a

vessel and surveys or inspections).

Insofar as cleaning operations are concerned, Customs has held

that cleaning operations which remove rust and deterioration or

worn parts, and which are a necessary factor in the effective

restoration of a vessel to its former state of preservation,

constitute vessel repairs. Analogous to Customs position

regarding the dutiability of surveys, Customs has long held that

the cost of 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 C.I.E.\'s 18/48; 125/48; 910/59; 820/60; 51/61;

569/62; and 698/62).

Also pertinent in this case are Customs positions regarding the

segregation of dutiable and non-dutiable costs and the

dutiability of accessing work. Pursuant to C.I.E. 1325/58 and

C.I.E. 565/55, duties may not be remitted where the invoice does

not segregate the dutiable costs from the non-dutiable costs.

Where accessing work is integral to dutiable repairs, the

accessing work is also dutiable (see HQ ruling 108366).

(As for the possible applicability of the decision in Texaco

Marine Services, Inc. v. United States, 44 F. 3d 1539 (Fed. Cir.

1994), to surveys or inspections (see above), we note that,

except for post-repair cleaning and protective coverings, the

decision in that case will not apply to vessel repair entries

filed prior to the date of that decision (December 29, 1994).

Since the vessel repair entry under consideration was filed prior

to that date, Texaco would not affect Customs position regarding

surveys in the entry under consideration.)

The applicant claims that items 509.3, 514, 515.1 (portions

only), 515.2 (portions only), 519, 519.1, 521, 522, and 530 (as

noted, the application for item 530 was untimely; no relief may

be granted in regard to this item) are non-dutiable, as

modifications to the hull and fittings of the vessel. Item 509.3

is non-dutiable on that basis (see rulings 111881 and 111884;

contrast to ruling 112864, in which the same work by the same

shipyard on the same class of vessel was held dutiable because

the work included a welding build-up of corroded areas, as

described in an invoice from the same shipyard as is involved in

this case). Item 514 is non-dutiable on the same basis (see

rulings 112454 (invoice from same shipyard as in this case

relating to the same work on the same class of vessel) and

112851\) (in the case of the work in this item and other items

described as \"\[d\]estroied area were disc-grinded or sandsweeped

then applied the coats as the specification\", we assume that this

work consists of restoring the area where the modifications were

made to its original condition so that it is not dutiable as

repairs (see C.I.E. 1043/60, see also, e.g., rulings 112851 and

112454)). The portion of item 515.1 consisting of work on the

\"longitudinal hatch coaming at expansion joint\" is non-dutiable

as a modification (see ruling 112454 in which the same work on

the same class of vessel, described in an invoice from the same

shipyard as is involved in this case, was held non-dutiable).

The portion of item 515.1 consisting of \"longitudinal hatch

coaming repaired at row 12 \...\" is dutiable as a repair (as

described in the invoice and ABS Report KS 7365-G).

The portions of item 515.2 under consideration are dutiable or

non-dutiable as follows. The portion of item 515.2 consisting of

modification of bearing pads is dutiable (note that ABS Report

KS-7365-G describes the existing pads as \"worn down\" (see

discussion of modifications in ruling HQ 112851 - qualifying

modifications may not involve the replacement of a current part,

fitting, or structure which is not in good working order). The

portions of item 515.2 consisting of work on (1) cover no. 8; and

\(2\) sliding base sockets are nondutiable as modifications (see

ruling HQ 112454 in which similar work on the same class of

vessel by the same shipyard as is involved in this case was held

non-dutiable (note also that the same drawing of the modification

(No. HEC9106-6 is referred to in both case and that the

applicable ABS Report describes the work as modifications)). The

portion of item 515.2 consisting of work on hatch covers 10 and

11 is dutiable, on the basis of the description of the work as

\"Modifications/Repairs\" in ABS Report KS 7365-G (note that the

ABS report distinguishes between repairs and modifications). The

portion of item 515.2 consisting of reinforcement of the bearing

pads (with the addition of \"stifference\") is dutiable in the

absence of satisfactory evidence to establish that it is a non-dutiable
modification (we note that it is not referred to in the

ABS Reports).

In regard to items 519 and 519.1, as noted in the FACTS portion

of this ruling about these items, references to related areas

and/or work in the referenced ABS Reports appear to indicate that

this work may have involved the modification of structures of the

hull and fittings which were not in good working order. We note

that in ruling HQ 112864 we held similar work to be non-dutiable,

as modifications, on the basis of communication between the

vessel operator and the ABS and the U.S. Coast Guard (the

communication referred to the vessel involved in that case as

well as the M/V PRESIDENT LINCOLN). However, on the basis of the

above-described evidence indicating that this work may have

involved the modification of structures not in good working

order, we must hold this work to be dutiable.

Item 521, consisting of the relocation of the aft hose crane, and

item 522, consisting of the replacement of rubber hoses on stores

and hose cranes with stainless steel tubings and fittings, are

non-dutiable (see ruling HQ 112864; note that the work held non-dutiable
in that case was the same work on the same class of

vessel in the same shipyard; note further that there is no

evidence of repairs regarding these items).

The applicant claims that items 509 (portions only), 515, 516

(portions only), 520, 525, 525.1 (portions only), 531 (portions

only), 532, and 561 are non-dutiable, as relating to surveys or

inspections. In the case of item 509, the costs for staging are

segregated from the other costs but the costs for opening and

closing the blade hatch are not segregated from the costs

conceded by the applicant to be dutiable. The costs for staging

are non-dutiable (see C.I.E. 1822/58). The remaining costs are

dutiable (see the rulings cited above in this regard, C.I.E.

1325/58 and C.I.E. 565/55 (failure of an invoice to segregate

dutiable costs from non-dutiable costs) and HQ ruling 108366

(accessing work which is integral to dutiable repairs)). Item

515 is dutiable, as involving unsegregated costs other than

transportation (see rulings HQ 112454, HQ 112864, and HQ 113085,

in which the same work by the same shipyard on the same class of

vessel was held dutiable on the same basis).

In the case of item 516, the costs for staging are segregated

from the other costs and are non-dutiable (see C.I.E. 1822/58).

The costs for removing and reinstalling the rope guard,

disconnecting the propeller, and other work under the second

portion of this item are dutiable, as work performed, in part, in

preparation for repairs in the third portion of this item,

conceded by the applicant to be dutiable (see rulings HQ 112454,

HQ 112864, and HQ 113085, in which the same work by the same

shipyard on the same class of vessel was held dutiable on the

same basis).

Items 520, 525, and 525.1 are dutiable as including unsegregated

preparation for dutiable tank repairs (see ABS Reports describing

such repairs and referred to in the FACTS portion of this ruling)

(see rulings HQ 112454, HQ 112864, and HQ 113085, in which

similar work by the same shipyard on the same class of vessel was

held dutiable on the same basis; see also, above discussion of

cleaning and segregation of dutiable and non-dutiable work). (In

regard to item 525.1, we note that part of the unsegregated costs

in this item were for the replacement of broken and missing cover

studs and bolts, which has been held dutiable (ruling HQ

112894).)

In item 531, the portion of that item including ranging out

anchor chains for examinations and other work is dutiable as

including preparation for repairs conceded to be dutiable by the

applicant (see rulings HQ 112454, HQ 112864, and HQ 113085, in

which the same work by the same shipyard on the same class of

vessel was held dutiable on the same basis; see also, above

discussion of cleaning and segregation of dutiable and non-dutiable
work). The portion of item 531 consisting of opening

the manhole cover of the chain lockers and related work is non-dutiable,
as not done in conjunction with repair work (see

rulings HQ 112454, HQ 112864, and HQ 113085, in which the same

work by the same shipyard on the same class of vessel was held

non-dutiable on the same basis).

Items 532 and 561 are non-dutiable, as cleaning and preparation

for inspections (see ruling HQ 112454, in which similar work by

the same shipyard on the same class of vessel was held non-dutiable on
the same basis; see also, above discussion of

cleaning and surveys or inspections).

In regard to item 556, we note that it is Customs position that

gauging for the purpose of ascertaining whether repairs are

required is considered an integral part of the repair work

performed and is dutiable (ruling HQ 109144). When the result of

gauging is that all readings are satisfactory and no repairs are

connected with the gauging, the cost of gauging is non-dutiable

(see, e.g., rulings HQ 112756, HQ 112222). In this case, the

invoice describes this item as \"SALT WATER PIPING, REPAIRS ABS &

USCG INSPECTION\" (emphasis added). Since the invoice describes

the work as \"repairs\" (we note that the invoice describes other

gauging items without referring to repairs (see item 571)) and

since the ABS Reports in the file do not clarify this matter, we

are unable to grant relief for this item. Item 556 is dutiable.

The dutiability of cleaning air scavenger spaces (item 8) has

been thoroughly considered by Customs (see, e.g., rulings HQ

111700 and HQ 112454). It is Customs position that this

operation is the correction (by cleaning) of a deterioration (the

collection of carbon and oil deposits in air scavenger spaces).

Therefore, this operation is a maintenance operation and is

dutiable.

HOLDING:

Among the items about which you requested advice, items 509

(staging), 509.3, 514, 515.1 (longitudinal hatch coaming at

expansion joint), 515.2 (cover no. 8), 515.2 (sliding base

sockets), 516 (staging), 521, 522, 531 (opening manhole cover of

chain lockers and related work), 532, and 561 are NON-DUTIABLE.

Items 509 (portions other than staging), 515, 515.1 (longitudinal

hatch coaming repaired at row 12), 515.2 (\"modification\" of

bearing pads), 515.2 (hatch covers 10 and 11), 515.2

(reinforcement of bearing pads), 516 (portions other than

staging), 519, 519.1, 520, 525, 525.1, 530, 531 (ranging out

anchor chains for examinations and other work), 556, and 8

(cleaning air scavenger spaces) are DUTIABLE.

Sincerely,

William G. Rosoff Chief

Entry and Carrier Rulings Branch