19 C.F.R. § 162.79

Determination as to violation

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

(a) No violation. If, after considering any presentations made in response to the prepenalty notice, the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer determines that there was no violation by the person named in the prepenalty notice, he promptly shall notify the person in writing of that determination and that no claim for a monetary penalty will be issued.

(b) Violation—(1) Written notice of claim. If, after considering any presentations made in response to the prepenalty notice, the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer determines that there was a violation by the person named in the prepenalty notice, he promptly shall issue a written notice of a claim for a monetary penalty to that person.

(2) Contents. The notice of a claim for a monetary penalty shall contain any changes in the information provided in the prepenalty notice, and shall inform the person of his right to apply for relief under section 618, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1618), in accordance with part 171 of this chapter. If the person to whom the notice is issued is liable for any actual loss of duties recoverable under section 592(d), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1592(d)), the notice shall identify the entries involved, state the amount of duties payable and how it was calculated, and require the person to deposit or arrange for payment of the duties within 30 days of the date of the notice.

[T.D. 72-211, 37 FR 16488, Aug. 15, 1972, as amended by T.D. 84-18, 49 FR 1680, Jan. 13, 1984; T.D. 99-27, 64 FR 13676, Mar. 22, 1999]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1983–2011 · leading case: Pakfood Pub. Co. Ltd. v. United States, 753 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pakfood Pub. Co. Ltd. v. United States, 753 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011). “at §§ 1592(b)(2) & (c) (providing for penalties for violation of § 1592(a)); 19 C.F.R. § 162.79 (same). 26 . See 19 C.”

United States v. Ross, 574 F. Supp. 1067 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1983). “See 19 C.F.R. §§ 162.79 , .79(b) (1983). Section 162.”

Pentax Corp. v. Myhra, 844 F. Supp. 611 (D. Mont. 1994). “19 C.F.R. § 162.79 (b). At the conclusion of the § 1618 mitigation proceeding, Customs must provide Pentax with a written statement setting forth Customs’ final penalty determination, and the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the determination is based.”

Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. United States, 791 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011). “at § 1592(b)(2) & (c) (providing for penalties for violation of § 1592(a)); 19 C.F.R. § 162.79 (same); Seneca Grape Juice Corp.”

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.