Cases from cite.case.law:

BURGESS, FTCA v. UNITED STATES FTCA v., 375 F. Supp. 3d 796 (E.D. Mich. 2019)

. . . . §§ 141.82(i), 141.83(b)(7), 141.90, 142.15, 142.19, 142.30. . . .

MAYS v. CITY OF FLINT, MICH., 871 F.3d 437 (6th Cir. 2017)

. . . . § 142.15. . . . See 40 C.F.R. § 142.15. . . .

N. BOYNTON, v. UNITED STATES,, 517 F. Supp. 2d 1349 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2007)

. . . . § 142.15, states in pertinent part: If the entry summary documentation is not filed timely, the port . . .

N. v., 31 Ct. Int'l Trade 1556 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2007)

. . . . § 142.15, states in pertinent part: entry summary documentation is not filed timely, the port director . . .

COLEGROVE, v. B. BARNHART,, 435 F. Supp. 2d 218 (W.D.N.Y. 2006)

. . . sought by McDonald for each year is as follows: $130.87 for 1998; $133.73 for 1999; $138.25 for 2000; $142.15 . . .

Co. v., 18 Ct. Int'l Trade 654 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1994)

. . . . § 142.15 and § 172.1(a), and the Service’s failure to timely notify it in writing of its liability . . . While it did address, as a subsidiary issue, whether the provisions of 19 C.F.R. §§ 142.15 and 172.1( . . . The plaintiff argues that section 172.1(a), read in conjunction with section 142.15, is specifically . . . While the plaintiff argues that this section must be read in conjunction with 142.15, which instructs . . . Those pertinent provisions were as follows: § 142.15 Failure to file entry summary timely. . . .

UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES,, 26 Cl. Ct. 773 (Cl. Ct. 1992)

. . . . § 142.15 (1988), and 19 C.F.R. § 172.1 (1988), the Government should have notified it immediately, . . . This ensures that the Government’s contractual expectations are realized. . 19 C.F.R. § 142.15 provides . . .

UNITED STATES v. YIP,, 930 F.2d 142 (2d Cir. 1991)

. . . . §§ 142.15, 142.27, a refusal by customs to allow future release of the importer’s goods without payment . . .

WASHINGTON INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. v. UNITED STATES,, 16 Cl. Ct. 663 (Cl. Ct. 1989)

. . . . § 142.15 provides, in pertinent part: If the entry summary documentation is not filed timely, the district . . .

McMULLAN, v. THORNBURGH,, 570 F. Supp. 1070 (E.D. Pa. 1983)

. . . Lemer’s in-court appearances on 3/28/83 and 4/25/83) for 142.15 legal and paralegal hours spent by the . . .

GALLAGHER ASCHER COMPANY, v. E. SIMON,, 687 F.2d 1067 (7th Cir. 1982)

. . . . § 142.15 (1976). . . . See 19 C.F.R. § 142.15 (1976). . . .

D. A. v., 74 T.C. 1377 (T.C. 1980)

. . . .$23,704.15 $23,562 $142.15 Communications .10,181.00 10,181 0 Supplies and printing .18,910.05 9,984 . . .

PHOENIX MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. J. McLEAN, 263 F. Supp. 246 (E.D. Pa. 1967)

. . . Roseman 6/13/62 — $143.25 6/27/62 - 142.15 7/13/62 - 134.80 7/30/62 - 143.25 563.45 Eugene J. . . .

MANUFACTURERS FINANCE CO. v. MARKS, 142 F.2d 521 (6th Cir. 1944)

. . . received during the four months in question (which is admitted to be $71,067.47), namely, $49,747.22 less $142.15 . . .