(a) Remission or mitigation authority. Upon receipt of a petition for relief submitted pursuant to the provisions of section 618 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1618), or section 5321(c) of title 31, United States Code (31 U.S.C. 5321(c)), the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer is empowered to remit or mitigate on such terms and conditions as, under law and in view of the circumstances, he or she deems appropriate in accordance with appropriate delegations of authority.
(b) When violation did not occur. Notwithstanding any other delegation of authority, the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer is always empowered to cancel any claim when he or she definitely determines that the act or omission forming the basis of any claim of penalty or forfeiture did not occur.
(c) When violation is result of vessel in distress. The Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer may remit without payment any penalty which arises for violation of the coastwise laws if he or she is satisfied that the violation occurred as a direct result of an arrival of the transporting vessel in distress.
[T.D. 00-57, 65 FR 53576, Sept. 5, 2000, as amended by CBP Dec. 12-07, 77 FR 19534, Apr. 2, 2012]
Notes of Decisions
United States v. George Douglas Vaughn, 797 F.2d 1485 (9th Cir. 1986).
“Vaughn filed a petition for remission under 19 C.F.R. § 171.11 , stating that Laughlin had no knowledge of the illegal activities and that the airplane was in Wasilowski’s possession under a lease purchase agreement at the time of the illegal activity.”
United States v. Freight Forwarder Int'l, Inc., 2015 CIT 5 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015).
“19 C.F.R. § 171.11 (a). 12 . Although this date is after the 30 day deadline to submit a request for cancellation, the documentary evidence submitted by Plaintiff suggests Defendant received an extension.”
Cabrera v. United States, 10 Cl. Ct. 219 (Ct. Cl. 1986).
“§ 1618 (1982) and 19 C.F.R. § 171.11 et seq. Counsel also requested the immediate return of the vessel under the Customs Service’s constructive seizure or early release program pending resolution of the matter.”
United States v. Ross, 574 F. Supp. 1067 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1983).
“See 19 C.F.R. § 171.11 (c)(3) (1983). Compliance within 7 days cannot be said to be an unreasonable burden.”
High Star Toys, Inc. v. United States, 32 Fed. Cl. 176 (Fed. Cl. 1994).
“§ 1618 and 19 C.F.R. Part 171.11. After the official seizure notices, plaintiff filed formal requests that judicial or administrative forfeiture proceedings be deferred so that administrative relief could be sought (Nov.”
Von Neumann v. United States, 660 F.2d 1319 (9th Cir. 1981).
“See 19 C.F.R. § 171.11 (a) (1980). We note that the greater the value of the merchandise, the greater the potential for a burden on individual rights.”
United States v. One 1957 Rockwell Aero Commander 680 Aircraft, 671 F.2d 414 (10th Cir. 1982).
“19 Equally without merit is Parker's assertion that the district court erred in not making any findings of fact or law under 19 C.F.R. 171.11 and 171.13. These regulations relate exclusively to administrative petitions addressed to the Commissioner of Customs for the "remission…”
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.