U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART I— CRIMES › Chapter CHAPTER 114— TRAFFICKING IN CONTRABAND CIGARETTES AND SMOKELESS TOBACCO

18 U.S.C. § 2346

Enforcement and regulations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The Attorney General, subject to the provisions of section 2343(a) of this title, shall enforce the provisions of this chapter and may prescribe such rules and regulations as he deems reasonably necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter.(b)(1) A State, through its attorney general, a local government, through its chief law enforcement officer (or a designee thereof), or any person who holds a permit under chapter 52 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, may bring an action in the United States district courts to prevent and restrain violations of this chapter by any person (or by any person controlling such person), except that any person who holds a permit under chapter 52 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 may not bring such an action against a State or local government. No civil action may be commenced under this paragraph against an Indian tribe or an Indian in Indian country (as defined in section 1151).(2) A State, through its attorney general, or a local government, through its chief law enforcement officer (or a designee thereof), may in a civil action under paragraph (1) also obtain any other appropriate relief for violations of this chapter from any person (or by any person controlling such person), including civil penalties, money damages, and injunctive or other equitable relief. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to abrogate or constitute a waiver of any sovereign immunity of a State or local government, or an Indian tribe against any unconsented lawsuit under this chapter, or otherwise to restrict, expand, or modify any sovereign immunity of a State or local government, or an Indian tribe.(3) The remedies under paragraphs (1) and (2) are in addition to any other remedies under Federal, State, local, or other law.(4) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to expand, restrict, or otherwise modify any right of an authorized State official to proceed in State court, or take other enforcement actions, on the basis of an alleged violation of State or other law.(5) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to expand, restrict, or otherwise modify any right of an authorized local government official to proceed in State court, or take other enforcement actions, on the basis of an alleged violation of local or other law.(Added Pub. L. 95–575, § 1, Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2465; amended Pub. L. 107–296, title XI, § 1112(i)(2), Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2277; Pub. L. 109–177, title I, § 121(f), Mar. 9, 2006, 120 Stat. 223.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Chapter 52 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, referred to in subsec. (b)(1), is classified generally to chapter 52 (§ 5701 et seq.) of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.

Amendments

2006—Pub. L. 109–177 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).

2002—Pub. L. 107–296 substituted “Attorney General” for “Secretary”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2002 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 107–296 effective 60 days after Nov. 25, 2002, see section 4 of Pub. L. 107–296, set out as an Effective Date note under section 101 of Title 6, Domestic Security.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2013–2024 · leading case: State of New York v. Mountain Tobacco Co., 942 F.3d 536 (2d Cir. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of New York v. Mountain Tobacco Co., 942 F.3d 536 (2d Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “” 18 U.S.C. § 2346 (b)(1). The statute does not define “Indian”; “Indian country” is defined in relevant part as “all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States.”
New York v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 253 F. Supp. 3d 583 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). · cites it 2× “18 U.S.C. § 2346 (b)(1)—(3). 143 E. Calculation of Penalties 144 The Court turns to the complicated question of determining the appropriate penalties to be imposed for the violations of the AOD and various statutory schemes.”
City of New York v. Gordon, 1 F. Supp. 3d 94 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). · cites it 3× “Compare 18 U.S.C. § 2346 (b)(1) with 15 U.S.C. § 378 (c)(1)(A).”
Buchwald Capital Advisors, LLC v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (In re Greektown Holdings, LLC), 917 F.3d 451 (6th Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “§§ 3104 , 3250, 3002(7), 3002(10) (authorizing suits against an “Indian tribe”); USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, 18 U.S.C. § 2346 (“Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to abrogate or constitute a waiver of any sovereign immunity of .”
New York v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 942 F.3d 554 (2d Cir. 2019). “The CCTA allows a state or locality in a civil action to obtain “appropriate relief for violations,” including but not limited to “money damages” and “injunctive or other equitable relief,” 18 U.S.C. § 2346 (b)(2), which easily encompasses “unpaid taxes.”
Ho-Chunk, Inc. v. Sessions, 253 F. Supp. 3d 303 (D.D.C. 2017). “” 18 U.S.C. § 2346 (b)(1) (emphasis added).”
New York v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 160 F. Supp. 3d 629 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). “” 18 U.S.C. § 2346 (b); see also City of New York v.”
City of New York v. Chavez, 944 F. Supp. 2d 260 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). “18 U.S.C. §§ 2346 (b)(1), (2). For the purposes of federal regulation over fraudulent or unlawful corporate activities, a person “controlling” a corporate entity is a person with the “possession, direct or indirect, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management…”
City of N.Y. v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 351 F. Supp. 3d 456 (S.D. Ill. 2018). “FedEx challenges Plaintiffs' proposed formula on the ground that genuine disputes of material fact exist as to whether such shipments caused Plaintiffs any damages.”
United States v. Narco Freedom, Inc., 95 F. Supp. 3d 747 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). “2010) (interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 2346 (b)(2)); CFTC v. British Am.”
State of CA v. Del Rosa, No. 2:23-cv-00743 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2024). · cites it 2× “]” 6 18 U.S.C. § 2346 (b)(1). The CCTA does not define “Indian,” but does define “Indian country” as 7 “(a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States 8 Government .”
State Of New York v. Grand River Enter. Six Nations, LTD., No. 1:14-cv-00910 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2020). · cites it 2× “More particularly, Plaintiff argues current ownership information for NWS is necessary because of NWS’s assertion that it is immune from suit by Plaintiff regarding Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to the CCTA which precludes suit by a state against an Indian-owned entity as provided…”
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.