(a) Time within which to respond. Unless a shorter period is specified in the prepenalty notice or an extension is given in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, the named person shall have 30 days from the date of mailing of the prepenalty notice to make a written and an oral presentation. The Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer may specify a shorter reasonable period of time, but not less than 7 days, if less than 1 year remains before the statute of limitations may be asserted as a defense. If a period of fewer than 30 days is specified, the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer, if possible, shall inform the named person of the prepenalty notice and its contents by telephone at or about the time of issuance.
(b) Extensions. If at least 1 year remains before the statute of limitations may be asserted as a defense, the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer, upon written request, may extend the time for filing a written presentation, or making an oral presentation, or both, for any of the reasons given in part 171 of this chapter (except for the reason described in § 171.15(a)(4)), relating to extensions of time for filing petitions for relief. In addition, an extension may be granted if, upon the request of the alleged violator, the Commissioner of Customs determines that the case involves an issue which is a proper matter for submission to Customs Headquarters under the internal advice procedures of § 177.11(b)(2) of this chapter. Other extensions may be authorized only by Headquarters.
(c) Form and contents of written presentation. The written presentation need not be in any particular form, but shall contain information sufficient to indicate that it is the written presentation in response to the prepenalty notice. It should contain answers to the allegations in the prepenalty notice and set forth the reasons why the person believes the claim should not be issued or, if issued, why it should be in a lesser amount than proposed.
(d) Additional presentations. In addition to one written and one oral presentation, the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer, in his discretion, may allow further presentations.
[T.D. 72-211, 37 FR 16488, Aug. 15, 1972, as amended by T.D. 85-195, 50 FR 50290, Dec. 10, 1985; T.D. 99-27, 64 FR 13676, Mar. 22, 1999]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases, 1983–2016 · leading case:
United States v. Islip, 18 F. Supp. 2d 1047 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).
United States v. Islip, 18 F. Supp. 2d 1047 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).
· cites it 3× “Fourth, Defendant was, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 162.78 (a), entitled to receive thirty, rather than seven, days to respond to his prepenalty notice.”
United States v. Stanley Works, 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 1378 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993).
· cites it 8× “77 (1990) and 19 C.F.R. § 162.78 (1990) which allow a minimum response time of seven days when there is less than one year for the statute of limitations to run.”
United States v. Kirk Koo Chow, 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 1372 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993).
· cites it 5× “§ 1592 by (1) accurately describingthe merchandise at issue; (2) disclosing the material facts establishing the alleged violation; (3) providing defendant with the opportunity to review entry documents relating to the case; and (4) affording defendant a seven-day time period…”
United States v. Maxi Switch, Inc., 18 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).
· cites it 5× “19 C.F.R. §§ 162.78 (a), 171.12(b). In the case of pre-penalty notices, Customs’ regulations permit the agency to specify a shorter response period when “less than 1 year remains before the statute of limitations may be asserted as a defense.”
United States v. Obron Atl. Corp., 18 Ct. Int'l Trade 771 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994).
· cites it 2× “Customs is guided in the application of this requirement by 19 C.F.R. § 162.78 (1992), which provides the time period within which the defendant must respond to a pre-penalty notice.”
United States v. Int'l Trading Servs., LLC, 2016 CIT 112 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).
“A at CBP000174; see also 19 C.F.R. § 162.78 (a) (recipient of pre-penalty notice generally has thirty days to “make- a written and oral presentation”).”
United States v. Complex Mach. Works Co., 937 F. Supp. 943 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996).
“Obron, dealt, as the entire quotation makes clear 3 , with the question of whether Customs gave sufficient response time in an administrative proceeding under 19 C.F.R. § 162.78 (1992) which allows the Government to require a response in less than thirty days if less than one…”
United States v. Nussbaum, 94 F. Supp. 2d 1343 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).
“§ 1592 (b)(2); 19 C.F.R. § 162.78 . Nussbaum insists that since he was never issued a notice in his individual capacity by Customs, he had no opportunity to be heard as to his personal liability.”
United States v. KAB Trade Co., 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 297 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997).
· cites it 2× “§ 1592 (b); 19 C.F.R. § 162.78 (1993) (presentations responding to pre-penalty notice).”
United States v. Ziegler Bolt & Parts Co., 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 13 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995).
· cites it 3× “In the prepenalty notice, Customs invoked 19 C.F.R. § 162.78 (a), which allows Customs to demand a shortened response time if less than one year remains before the statute of limitations may be asserted as a defense: § 162.”
Bowman Trading Co. v. Area Dir. of Customs, 9 Ct. Int'l Trade 501 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1985).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 162.78 , the notice, which is dated June 26, 1985, offers the plaintiff the opportunity to make a written and an oral presentation as to why the Customs Service should not issue a written penalty claim.”
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.