19 C.F.R. § 171.21
Written decisions
If a petition for relief relates to a violation of sections 592, 593A or 641, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1592, 19 U.S.C. 1593a, or 19 U.S.C. 1641), the petitioner will be provided with a written statement setting forth the decision on the matter and the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the decision is based.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1976–2018 · leading case: United States v. Von Neumann, 474 U.S. 242 (1986).
United States v. Von Neumann, 474 U.S. 242 (1986). “This authority has been delegated to District Directors of the Customs Service in some cases where the total value of the merchandise forfeited does not exceed $100,000, 19 CFR § 171.21 (1985). At the time of this seizure, the limit was $25,000.”
Kuehne & Nagel, Inc. v. United States, 17 Cl. Ct. 11 (Ct. Cl. 1989). “Kuehne’s argument in this regard is that the District Director of Customs (District Director) has authority under 19 C.F.R. § 171.21 3 to mitigate any claim that does not exceed $100,000, and that, as the value of the seized merchandise was substituted for the $17,805 letter of…”
United States v. George Douglas Vaughn, 797 F.2d 1485 (9th Cir. 1986). “” 19 C.F.R. § 171.21 . If, as in this case, the property seized was in the possession of a third party who committed the acts which led to forfeiture, the petitioning owner must present “[ejvidence as to the manner in which the property came into the possession of such other…”
Tri-State Hosp. Supply Corp. v. United States, 142 F. Supp. 2d 93 (D.D.C. 2001). “If, following consultation with the Chief Counsel representative in the field, the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer determines by clear and convincing evidence that the statute of limitations would be available as a defense to enforcement of a claim for monetary…”
United States v. Univar USA Inc., 355 F. Supp. 3d 1225 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). “" 19 C.F.R. § 171.21 . "On October 1, 2014, CBP issued its penalty notice.”
Lee v. Thornton, 538 F.2d 27 (2d Cir. 1976). “§ 1618 ; 19 C.F.R. § 171.21 . Some days later Lee filed such a petition and the penalty was reduced to $100.”
Von Neumann v. United States, 660 F.2d 1319 (9th Cir. 1981). “In cases where the forfeiture value does not exceed $25,000, the district director may remit or mitigate the penalty “under the law and in view of the circumstances, [as] he shall deem appropriate ____” 19 C.F.R. § 171.21 (1980). The administrative remission process is…”
In Re Grand Jury Proceedings (Daewoo), 613 F. Supp. 672 (D. Or. 1985). “See 19 C.F.R. § 171.21 . When a penalty is assessed by the Customs Service, an action must be instituted in the Court of International Trade or in a United States District Court in order to enforce the penalty.”
United States v. Tip Top Pants, Inc., 2010 CIT 5 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010). “§ 1592 (b); 19 C.F.R. § 171.21 (2009) (“If a petition for relief relates to a violation of sectionD 592 .”
United States v. Tip Top Pants, Inc., 2010 CIT 91 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010). “” 19 C.F.R. § 171.21 (2009) (emphasis added).”
Lyng Motors & Serv., Inc. v. United States, 923 F. Supp. 356 (N.D.N.Y. 1996). “without willful negligence or without any intention on the part of the petitioner to defraud the revenue or to violate the law, or finds the existence of such mitigating circumstances as to justify the remission or mitigation of such fine, penalty, or forfeiture, may remit or…”
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.