19 C.F.R. § 162.73

Penalties under section 592, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

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

(a) Maximum penalty without prior disclosure. If the person concerned has not made a prior disclosure as provided in § 162.74, the monetary penalty under section 592, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1592), shall not exceed:

(1) For fraudulent violations, the domestic value of the merchandise;

(2) For grossly negligent violations,

(i) The lesser of the domestic value of the merchandise or four times the loss of duties, taxes and fees or

(ii) If there is no loss of duties, taxes and fees 40 percent of the dutiable value of the merchandise; and

(3) For negligent violations,

(i) The lesser of the domestic value of the merchandise or two times the loss of duties, taxes and fees or

(ii) If there is no loss of duties, taxes and fees 20 percent of the dutiable value of the merchandise.

(b) Maximum penalty with prior disclosure. If the person concerned has made a prior disclosure, the monetary penalty shall not exceed:

(1) For fraudulent violations,

(i) One times the loss of duties, taxes and fees or

(ii) If there is no loss of duties, taxes and fees 10 percent of the dutiable value of the merchandise; and

(2) For grossly negligent and negligent violations, the interest on any loss of duties, taxes and fees. The interest shall be computed from the date of liquidation at the prevailing rate of interest applied under section 6621, Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (26 U.S.C. 6621).

(c) Exception; clerical error or mistake of fact. There is no violation and, consequently, no penalty incurred, if the falsity or omission is due solely to clerical error or mistake of fact, unless the error or mistake is part of the pattern of negligent conduct.

[T.D. 79-160, 44 FR 31958, June 4, 1979, as amended by T.D. 99-64, 64 FR 43267, Aug. 10, 1999]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1998–2007 · leading case: United States v. Ford Motor Co., 395 F. Supp. 2d 1190 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Ford Motor Co., 395 F. Supp. 2d 1190 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005). “§ 1592 (c)(3); 19 C.F.R. § 162.73 (a)(3). The plain language of the statute only sets maximum penalties and does not establish minimum penalties.”

United States v. Inn Foods, Inc., 515 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007). “§ 1592 (c)(1); see also 19 C.F.R. § 162.73 (a)(1)), in this case $15,319,513.”

United States v. Ford Motor Co., 387 F. Supp. 2d 1305 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005). “§ 1592 (c)(2); see also 19 C.F.R. § 162.73 (a)(2). The plain language of the statute only sets maximum penalties and does not establish minimum penalties, nor does it require the Court to begin with the maximum and reduce that amount in light of mitigating factors.”

Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 435 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “See 19 C.F.R. §§ 162.73 (b), 162.74(a) (2005).”

Bridalane Fashions, Inc. v. United States, 32 F. Supp. 2d 466 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998). “§ 1592 (c)(l)-(3) and 19 C.F.R. § 162.73 . These penalties vary according to the level of culpability, the value of the merchandise, and the revenue loss caused by the violation.”

United States v. Nat'l Semiconductor Corp., 2006 CIT 90 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). · cites it 2× “§ 1592 (a); 19 C.F.R. § 162.73 (a)(3). As it happened, because disclosure had been voluntary, the maximum statutory penalty that Customs could pursue was the interest, from the date of liquidation, on the amount of the fees of which the United States had been deprived.”

United States v. Ford Motor Co., 491 F. Supp. 2d 1248 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007). · cites it 3× “§ 1592 (c) (3)(1988); 19 C.F.R. § 162.73 (a)(3) (1992). This Court found that the actual loss of revenue (“LOR”) to the United States (“Plaintiff’ or “Government”) was $8,575,961.”

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.