When used in this subpart, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated:
(a) Loss of duties under section 592. “Loss of duties” means the duties of which the Government is or may be deprived by reason of the violation and includes both actual and potential loss of duties.
(1) Actual loss of duties. “Actual loss of duties” means the duties of which the Government has been deprived by reason of the violation in respect of entries on which liquidation had become final.
(2) Potential loss of duties. “Potential loss of duties” means the duties of which the Government tentatively was deprived by reason of the violation in respect of entries on which liquidation had not become final.
(b) Loss of revenue under section 593A. When used in § 162.73a, the term “loss of revenue” means the amount of drawback (see § 191.2(i) of this chapter) that is claimed and to which the claimant is not entitled and includes both actual and potential loss of revenue.
(1) Actual loss of revenue. When used in §§ 162.73a, 162.74, 162.77a and 162.79b, the term “actual loss of revenue” means the amount of drawback (see § 191.2(i) of this chapter) that is claimed and has been paid to the claimant and to which the claimant is not entitled.
(2) Potential loss of revenue. When used in § 162.77a, the term “potential loss of revenue” means the amount of drawback (see § 191.2(i) of this chapter) that is claimed and has not been paid to the claimant and to which the claimant is not entitled.
(c) Repetitive violation. When used in § 162.73a to describe a violation, “repetitive” has reference to a violation by a person that involves the same issue as a prior violation by that person.
(d) Noncommercial importation. “Noncommercial importation” means merchandise imported by a traveler for an individual's personal or household use, or as a gift, but not imported for sale or other commercial purposes.
(e) Clerical error. “Clerical error” means an error in the preparation, assembly, or submission of a document which results when a person intends to do one thing but does something else. It includes, for example, errors in transcribing numbers, errors in arithmetic, and the failure to assemble all the documents in a record.
(f) Mistake of fact. “Mistake of fact” means an action based upon a belief by a person that the material facts are other than they really are; it can be that a fact exists but is unknown to the person, or that he believes something is a fact when in reality it is not. An action is not a mistake of fact if the erroneous belief is caused by the neglect of a legal duty.
[T.D. 79-160, 44 FR 31958, June 4, 1979, as amended by T.D. 84-18, 49 FR 1678, Jan. 13, 1984; 49 FR 3986, Feb. 1, 1984; T.D. 98-49, 63 FR 29131, May 28, 1998; T.D. 00-5, 65 FR 3808, Jan. 25, 2000]
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Ford Motor Co., 463 F.3d 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
“Ford asserts that Customs had the burden of proving the extent to which those disclosures related to matters within the scope of the investigation; the government argues that Ford’s tenders failed to satisfy the specific requirements for prior disclosures set forth in 19 C.F.R.…”
United States v. ITT Indus., Inc., 343 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).
· cites it 2× “The phrase "discloses the circumstances of [a] violation” is defined in the regulations at 19 C.F.R. § 162.71 (e) and provides: (e) Discloses the circumstances of [a] violation.”
United States v. Ford Motor Co., 463 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
“In reaching those conclusions, it relied primarily on the provisions of 19 C.F.R. § 162.71 (d), which set forth the criteria for determining the start of a formal investigation.”
United States v. Ford Motor Co., 387 F. Supp. 2d 1305 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005).
· cites it 2× “See 19 C.F.R. § 162.71 (e). A formal investigation is considered to be commenced on the earliest of the following: (1) the date recorded in writing in the investigatory record, including contemporaneous notes, as the date upon which an agent believed the possibility of a…”
United States v. Ford Motor Co., 395 F. Supp. 2d 1190 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005).
“…forth the true and accurate information or data which should have been provided in the original entry documents. See 19 C.F.R. § 162.71 (e).”
Pentax Corp. v. Myhra, 844 F. Supp. 611 (D. Mont. 1994).
· cites it 2× “The phrase “actual loss of duties" is defined in 19 C.F.R. § 162.71 (a)(1) as: "... the duties of which the government has been deprived by reason of the violation in respect of entries on which liquidation had become final.”
United States v. Snuggles, Inc., 20 Ct. Int'l Trade 1057 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996).
“398 (1979)), effective June 4,1979, which includes a proposal to expand the definition of “actual loss of duties” included in 19 CFR § 162.71 “to provide that, for purposes of assessing any penalty, the actual loss of duties shall be reduced by the amount of any erroneous…”
Lee v. United States, 196 F. Supp. 2d 1351 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
“” 19 C.F.R. § 162.71 (a)(1). Pentax interpreted "actual loss of duties” under these circumstances as meaning the difference between (1) the true duty liability based upon the true country of origin and (2) the duty liability based upon the state country of origin.”
Pentax Corp. v. Myhra, 181 F.R.D. 458 (D. Mont. 1994).
· cites it 2× “The phrase "actual loss of duties” is defined in 19 C.F.R. § 162.71 (a)(1) as: "... the duties of which the government has been deprived by reason of the violation in respect of entries on which liquidation had become final.”
Brother Int'l Corp. v. United States, 294 F. Supp. 2d 1373 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
“According to 19 C.F.R. § 162.71 (a)(1), “actual loss of duties” means the duties of which the Government has been deprived by reason of the violation in respect of entries on which liquidation had become final.”
United States v. Farhan Khan, 2017 CIT 85 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).
· cites it 2× “” 19 C.F.R. § 162.71 (a)(1) (2012). CBP’s regulations define "potential loss of duties” as "the duties of which the Government tentatively was deprived by reason of the violation in respect to entries on which liquidation had not become final.”
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.