19 C.F.R. § 111.91
Grounds for imposition of a monetary penalty; maximum penalty
CBP may assess a monetary penalty or penalties as follows:
(a) In the case of a broker, in an amount not to exceed an aggregate of $30,000 for one or more of the reasons set forth in § 111.53(a) through (g) other than those listed in § 111.53(b)(3), and provided that no license or permit suspension or revocation proceeding has been instituted against the broker under subpart D of this part for any of the same reasons; or
(b) In the case of a person who is not a broker, in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each transaction or violation referred to in § 111.4 and in an amount not to exceed an aggregate of $30,000 for all those transactions or violations.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1997–2017 · leading case: United States v. UPS Customhouse Brokerage, Inc., 442 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).
United States v. UPS Customhouse Brokerage, Inc., 442 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “Plaintiff calls the Court’s attention to 19 C.F.R. § 111.91 , which states § 111.91 Grounds for imposition of a monetary penalty; maximum penalty.”
Jade Trading, LLC Ex Rel. Ervin v. United States, 598 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “2009) (vacating as moot the issue of whether Customs could impose penalties aggregating more than $30,000 under 19 C.F.R. § 111.91 when the case was being remanded for Customs to conduct a proper analysis of whether there was in fact a violation of 19 U.”
United States v. UPS Customhouse Brokerage, Inc., 575 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “These issues are whether there were in fact multiple violations of § 1641 and whether Customs can impose penalties aggregating more than $30,000, see 19 C.F.R. § 111.91 (“Customs may assess a monetary penalty or penalties as follows: (a) In the case of a broker in an amount not…”
United States v. Freight Forwarder Int'l, Inc., 2015 CIT 5 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015). “transaction [of customs business without a license],” but § 1641(d)(2)(A) and 19 C.F.R. § 111.91 (b) limit the total amount for all violations to $30,000.”
United States v. Puentes, 2017 CIT 33 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). “§ 1641 (d)(2)(A); see also 19 C.F.R. § 111.91 (stating that monetary penalty may not “exceed an aggregate of $30,000 for one or more of the reasons set forth in [ 19 C.”
United States v. Ricci, 985 F. Supp. 125 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997). “Similarly, the regulation under which Customs enforces the statutory provision, 19 C.F.R. section 111.91 sets forth the $30,000 limit without a means of determining the actual amount of the penalty .”
United States v. Ricci, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 1145 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997). “Similarly, the regulation under which Customs enforces the statutory provision, 19 C.F.R. section 111.91 sets forth the $30,000 limit without a means of determining the actual amount of the penalty.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.