(a) To whom addressed. Petitions for the remission or mitigation of a fine, penalty, or forfeiture incurred under any law administered by Customs must be addressed to the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer designated in the notice of claim.
(b) Signature. For commercial violations, the petition for remission or mitigation must be signed by the petitioner, his attorney-at-law or a Customs broker. If the petitioner is a corporation, the petition may be signed by an officer or responsible supervisory official of the corporation, or a responsible employee representative of the corporation. Electronic signatures are acceptable. In non-commercial violations, a non-English speaking petitioner or petitioner who has a disability which may impede his ability to file a petition may enlist a family member or other representative to file a petition on his behalf. The deciding Customs officer may, in his or her discretion, require proof of representation before consideration of any petition.
(c) Form. The petition for remission or mitigation need not be in any particular form. Customs can require that the petition and any documents submitted in support of the petition be in English or be accompanied by an English translation. The petition must set forth the following:
(1) A description of the property involved (if a seizure);
(2) The date and place of the violation or seizure;
(3) The facts and circumstances relied upon by the petitioner to justify remission or mitigation; and
(4) If a seizure case, proof of a petitionable interest in the seized property.
(d) False statement in petition. A false statement contained in a petition may subject the petitioner to prosecution under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1001.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case:
Ivers v. United States, 581 F.2d 1362 (9th Cir. 1978).
Ivers v. United States, 581 F.2d 1362 (9th Cir. 1978).
· cites it 4× “The Customs Service apparently took the view that they were, at least, in some respects, in this case, 8 and the district court relied upon one of the customs regulations, 19 C.F.R. § 171.1 (a), in reaching its conclusion that judicial proceedings need not be commenced prior to…”
Ivers v. United States, 413 F. Supp. 394 (N.D. Cal. 1975).
· cites it 4× “However, under 19 C.F.R. § 171.1 (a), action on any petition is to be terminated as soon as the case has been referred to the U.”
Carlingswitch v. United States, 68 C.C.P.A. 49 (C.C.P.A. 1981).
“embodied in 19 CFR 171.1(a), is briefly, that a voluntary disclosure of violations of the customs laws, accompanied by a deposit of an amount equal to the total loss of revenue to the government will, in specified circumstances, result in mitigation of the penalty to an amount…”
Carlingswitch, Inc. v. United States, 500 F. Supp. 223 (Cust. Ct. 1980).
“More particularly, the tender was made pursuant to an established practice of Customs-that was later embodied in 19 CFR 171.1(a) (effective January 16, 1975)-under which a voluntary disclosure of violations of the Customs laws, accompanied by a deposit of an amount equal to the…”
Boston v. Stephens, 395 F. Supp. 1000 (S.D. Ohio 1975).
“§ 1618 and 19 C.F.R. § 171.1 et seq.~\, or pay or arrange to pay the penalty within 60 days from the date of mailing of the notice of violation as provided in section 162.”
Harak v. United States, 2006 CIT 106 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).
· cites it 3× “Question 74 Question 74 is designed to determine an examinee’s knowledge of the procedure set forth in 19 C.F.R. § 171.1 , which relates to petitions for the remission or mitigation of a fine, penalty, or forfeiture incurred under any law administered by Customs.”
Resource Club, Ltd. v. United States, 491 F. Supp. 2d 1296 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007).
· cites it 2× “Additionally, however, in response to Customs’ May 19, 2000 notice which alerted Resource Club that its visa was counterfeit, Resource Club filed a petition for relief from the seizure, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 171.1 . 8 Customs replied on September 7, 2000, offering relief, and…”
Lkq Corp. v. United States of Am. (D.D.C. 2019).
“By law, when an importer receives notice of a seizure by CBP, the importer has several options, two of which are relevant here.”
— 19 C.F.R. § 171.1(a) — 3 cases
Carlingswitch v. United States, 68 C.C.P.A. 49 (C.C.P.A. 1981).
“embodied in 19 CFR 171.1(a), is briefly, that a voluntary disclosure of violations of the customs laws, accompanied by a deposit of an amount equal to the total loss of revenue to the government will, in specified circumstances, result in mitigation of the penalty to an amount…”
Carlingswitch, Inc. v. United States, 500 F. Supp. 223 (Cust. Ct. 1980).
“More particularly, the tender was made pursuant to an established practice of Customs-that was later embodied in 19 CFR 171.1(a) (effective January 16, 1975)-under which a voluntary disclosure of violations of the Customs laws, accompanied by a deposit of an amount equal to the…”
Ivers v. United States, 413 F. Supp. 394 (N.D. Cal. 1975).
“However, under 19 C.F.R. § 171.1 (a), action on any petition is to be terminated as soon as the case has been referred to the U.”
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.