Whoever enters or introduces, or attempts to enter or introduce, into the commerce of the United States any imported merchandise by means of any fraudulent or false invoice, declaration, affidavit, letter, paper, or by means of any false statement, written or verbal, or by means of any false or fraudulent practice or appliance, or makes any false statement in any declaration without reasonable cause to believe the truth of such statement, or procures the making of any such false statement as to any matter material thereto without reasonable cause to believe the truth of such statement, whether or not the United States shall or may be deprived of any lawful duties; or
Whoever is guilty of any willful act or omission whereby the United States shall or may be deprived of any lawful duties accruing upon merchandise embraced or referred to in such invoice, declaration, affidavit, letter, paper, or statement, or affected by such act or omission—
Shall be fined for each offense under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve imported merchandise from forfeiture under other provisions of law.
The term “commerce of the United States”, as used in this section, shall not include commerce with the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Wake Island, Midway Islands, Kingman Reef, Johnston Island, or Guam.
Notes of Decisions
Kykhosro Notash v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 427 F.3d 693 (9th Cir. 2005).
· cites it 7× “The IJ concluded that Notash’s conviction for attempted entry of goods by means of *695 a false statement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 542 , constituted a crime of moral turpitude for purposes of Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 237(a)(2)(A)(i), 8 U.”
United States v. Ven-Fuel, Inc., 758 F.2d 741 (1st Cir. 1985).
· cites it 5× “1981) (applying the similarly worded criminal provision, 18 U.S.C. § 542 , to false statements that foreign automobiles were covered by certificates of conformity from the United States Environmental Protection Agency); United States v.”
United States v. Holmquist, 36 F.3d 154 (1st Cir. 1994).
· cites it 4× “Holmquist appeals his convictions on six counts of importing firearms by means of false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 542 and three counts of exporting restricted firearms in violation of 22 U.”
United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc., 785 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1986).
· cites it 4× “§ 542 and to defraud the United States by impairing the customs service’s attempt to learn the price and duties to be collected on imported television receivers.”
United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482 (1997).
· cites it 2× “§ 152 (maximum five year sentence for knowing and fraudulent receipt of material amount of property with intent to defeat bankruptcy code); 18 U. S. C. § 542 (maximum prison term of two years for entry of goods by means of material false statement); 18 U.”
United States v. Herman Ackerman, 704 F.2d 1344 (5th Cir. 1983).
· cites it 7× “In September of 1981, he was convicted by a jury of having violated 18 U.S.C. § 542 1 and was sentenced to a three-year period of probation.”
Peterson v. Browning, 832 P.2d 1280 (Utah 1992).
· cites it 4× “See 18 U.S.C. § 542 (1988); Mo.Rev.Stat. § 150.”
United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co., 458 U.S. 263 (1982).
· cites it 2× “In the latter District, the Government secured a superseding indictment charging four new substantive counts of making false statements to customs officers in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 542 , in addition to the two original counts.”
United States v. Mask of Ka-Nefer-Nefer, 752 F.3d 737 (8th Cir. 2014).
· cites it 2× “28, 2013), or Customs statutes that criminalize the smuggling of merchandise into this country, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 542 , 545; United States v. Broadening-Info Ents.”
United States v. Matthew Yip, 930 F.2d 142 (2d Cir. 1991).
· cites it 6× “§ 1341 (1988), and 59 counts of depriving the United States of lawful duty payments in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 542 (1988). On appeal he contends, inter alia, there was insufficient evidence to support the § 1341 mail fraud convictions, and that the importation of goods using…”
United States v. Bohai Trading Co., 45 F.3d 577 (1st Cir. 1995).
· cites it 4× “§ 2320 and that it imported goods by means of false or fraudulent practices in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 542 . The principal issue in this appeal is Bohai’s argument that § 2320(d) is unconstitutionally vague.”
United States v. Hemant Lakhani, 480 F.3d 171 (3rd Cir. 2007).
· cites it 2× “Lakhani does not dispute the Guidelines calculation. There being no motions for departure, the District Court then proceeded to impose a sentence pursuant to 18 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.