19 C.F.R. § 12.113

Arrival and entry of shipment of pesticides and devices

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Notice of Arrival form filed with CBP. Upon entry of a shipment of pesticides or devices into the United States, and concurrent with the filing of the entry documentation, CBP must be in receipt of a completed Notice of Arrival of Pesticides and Devices (Notice of Arrival) on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Form 3540-1 or its electronic alternative submitted via any CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system. A completed Notice of Arrival must have been signed by the Administrator and indicate any action to be taken by CBP with respect to the shipment. CBP will compare entry information for the shipment of pesticides or devices with the information in the Notice of Arrival and notify the Administrator of any discrepancies.

(b) EPA Notice of Arrival declaration form not presented. When a shipment of pesticides or devices arrives and entry is attempted in the United States without a completed Notice of Arrival having been filed with CBP pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, the shipment will be detained by CBP at the importer's risk and expense until the completed Notice of Arrival is presented to CBP or until other disposition is ordered by the Administrator. Such detention is not to exceed a period of 30-calendar days, or such additional extended 30-calendar day detention period as CBP may for good cause authorize. An importer or its agent may request an extension of the initial 30-calendar day detention period by filing a request with the director of the CBP port of entry.

(c) Disposition of pesticides or devices remaining under detention. A shipment of pesticides or devices that remains detained or undisposed of due to the failure to timely submit to CBP a completed Notice of Arrival will be treated as a prohibited importation. CBP will cause the destruction of any such shipment not exported by the consignee within 90-calendar days after the expiration of the detention period specified or authorized by paragraph (b) of this section.

[CBP Dec. 16-15, 81 FR 67143, Sept. 30, 2016]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2013–2024 · leading case: 2591028 Ontario Ltd. v. Advacare Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2024).
2591028 Ontario Ltd. v. Advacare Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2024). · cites it 3× “25, Advacare’s opposing argument that a material question of fact still exists, particularly, whether Ontario breached the implied warranty of merchantability because it failed to file a notice of arrival with Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) as required by 19 C.F.R.…”
United States v. Santos, 2013 CIT 154 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013). “6 By extension, Santos also violated 19 C.F.R. § 12.113 by not presenting a completed Notice of Arrival upon arrival of the Co-Ral Flowable.”
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.