# 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]{.underline}

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]{.underline}

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]{.underline} 19 U.S. 143 (1903);
[Bar Bea Truck Leasing Co., Inc. v. United States]{.underline}, 5 CIT
124, 126 (1983); [Pelz-Greenstein Co. v. United States]{.underline}, 17
C.C.P.A. 305, T.D. 43718 (1929). [See also]{.underline} 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