(a) When required. If the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of section 592, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1592), has occurred, and determines that further proceedings are warranted, he shall issue to the person concerned a notice of his intent to issue a claim for a monetary penalty. The prepenalty notice shall be issued whether or not a seizure has been made.
(b) Contents—(1) Facts of violation. The prepenalty notice shall:
(i) Describe the merchandise,
(ii) Set forth the details of the entry or introduction, the attempted entry or introduction, or the aiding or abetting of the entry, introduction, or attempt,
(iii) Specify all laws and regulations allegedly violated,
(iv) Disclose all material facts which establish the alleged violation,
(v) State whether the alleged violation occured as the result of fraud, gross negligence, or negligence, and
(vi) State the estimated loss of duties, if any, and, taking into account all circumstances, the amount of the proposed monetary penalty.
(2) Right to make presentations. The prepenalty notice also shall inform the person of his right to make an oral and a written presentation within 30 days of the mailing of the notice (or such shorter period as may be prescribed under § 162.78) as to why a claim for a monetary penalty should not be issued or, if issued, why it should be in a lesser amount than proposed.
(c) Exceptions. A prepenalty notice shall not be issued if:
(1) The claim is for $1,000 or less, or
(2) The violation occurred with respect to a noncommercial importation.
[T.D. 79-160, 44 FR 31958, June 4, 1979, as amended by T.D. 99-27, 64 FR 13676, Mar. 22, 1999]
Notes of Decisions
Pakfood Pub. Co. Ltd. v. United States, 753 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011).
“See 19 C.F.R. § 162.77 (a) ("If the [appropriate Customs] Officer has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of [19 U.”
United States v. Dantzler Lumber & Exp. Co., 810 F. Supp. 1277 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1992).
“According to 19 C.F.R. § 162.77 (b)(1) (1986), a pre-penalty notice had to meet the first six of the foregoing statutory requirements.”
United States v. Stanley Works, 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 1378 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993).
“The notice provided for a seven-day response time, citing 19 C.F.R. § 162.77 (1990) and 19 C.F.R. § 162.”
United States v. Rotek, Inc., 22 Ct. Int'l Trade 503 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).
“Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. §§ 162.77 and 162.78 (1997) which authorize Customs to shorten response times when less than one year remains before the statute of limitations can be raised as a defense, Customs required a written response within seven business days.”
Rey Cafe Coffee Co. v. Pitman, 5 Ct. Int'l Trade 112 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1983).
“19 CFR § 162.77 . The time limits imposed by customs in responding to the determinations made in connection with the subject merchandise do not accord with the statutory provisions of section 1592 nor with the customs regulations implementing the same.”
United States v. Ziegler Bolt & Parts Co., 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 13 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995).
“at 24 (citing 19 C.F.R. §§ 162.77 -.78). On October 27, 1989, defendant’s counsel sent a letter by certified mail return receipt requested to Customs protesting the proposed penalty and the shortened response time and requesting an extension of thirty days from the original due…”
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.