(a) CBP Form 7501. The entry summary must be on the CBP Form 7501, or its electronic equivalent, unless a different form or format is prescribed elsewhere in this chapter. CBP Form 7501, or its electronic equivalent, must be used for merchandise formally entered for consumption, formally entered for warehouse, or rewarehouse in accordance with § 144.11 of this chapter, and formally entered temporarily under bond under § 10.31 of this chapter. The entry summary for merchandise which may be entered free of duty in accordance with § 10.1(g) or (h) may be on CBP Form 3311, or its electronic equivalent, instead of on a CBP Form 7501 (or its electronic equivalent). For merchandise entitled to be entered under an informal entry, see § 143.23 of this chapter.
(b) Extra copies. The CBP may require additional copies of the entry summary if filed in paper.
[CBP Dec. No. 15-14, 80 FR 61289, Oct. 13, 2015]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2023 · leading case:
United States v. Puentes, 2017 CIT 33 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).
United States v. Puentes, 2017 CIT 33 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).
· cites it 4× “19 C.F.R. §§ 142.11 (a), 142.12(b). However, between September 2008 and February 2009, Puentes filed CF 7501s out of time for some 250 entries, on behalf of seven separate clients.”
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. United States, 2017 CIT 103 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).
· cites it 2× “3 (2003) (requiring CF 3461 unless the merchandise is imported from a contiguous country or the entry summary is filed at the time of entry), 142.”
United States v. Matthew Yip, 930 F.2d 142 (2d Cir. 1991).
“See 19 C.F.R. § 142.11 (1990). In this case, Airway followed a slightly modified version of this procedure, that is, the form 3461 was filed pursuant to a special permit for “immediate delivery” provided under 19 C.”
Gallagher & Ascher Co. v. Simon, 687 F.2d 1067 (7th Cir. 1982).
· cites it 2× “19 C.F.R. § 142.11 (a) (1976). If the customs broker fails to make timely entry, the transaction is charged against the bond which has been posted and the District Director of the Customs Service initiates a claim for liquidated damages.”
Teters Floral Prods. Co., Inc. v. United States, 586 F. Supp. 960 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1984).
“19 C.F.R. § 142.11 (1977). If Congress had wanted to change the longstanding rule with regard to fixing *963 of duty status, it would have done so explicitly.”
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.