18 U.S.C. § 544
Relanding of goods
If any merchandise entered or withdrawn for exportation without payment of the duties thereon, or with intent to obtain a drawback of the duties paid, or of any other allowances given by law on the exportation thereof, is relanded at any place in the United States without entry having been made, such merchandise shall be considered as having been imported into the United States contrary to law, and each person concerned shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both; and such merchandise shall be forfeited.
The term “any place in the United States”, as used in this section, shall not include the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Wake Island, Midway Islands, Kingman Reef, Johnston Island, or Guam.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1967–2020 · leading case: Yann Geron, Chapter 7 Tr., Direct Access Partners, LLC v. Craig (In re Direct Access Partners, LLC)
Yann Geron, Chapter 7 Tr., Direct Access Partners, LLC v. Craig (In re Direct Access Partners, LLC) (2019)
“See 18 U.S.C. § 544 (b). In turn, an unsecured creditor at the time of the bankruptcy filing would only have been entitled to pursue a claim under section 273 if that creditor had also been a creditor at the time of the challenged transfer.”
United States v. Diaz-Gomez (2012)
“Additionally, we note the district court’s judgment contains a typographical error indicating that the statute of conviction was 18 U.S.C. § 544 , (illegal relanding of exported goods with a maximum sentence of 24 months of imprisonment) instead of § 554 (illegally exporting…”
Roemer W. Winkler v. United States (1967)
“He contends that 18 U.S.C. § 544 under which he was charged and convicted fails to define or vaguely or uncertainly defines the act or commission it purports to denounce and punish, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the right to be informed of the…”
Isidro Carlon-Bonilla v. William Barr (2020)
“, Gullet, 75 F.3d at 948 . We join those courts and so construe 18 U.”
Delgado v. United States (2008)
“18 U.S.C. § 544 (2000) (emphasis added). Second, as this action demonstrates, the Secretary interprets “involved” in section 1641(d)(1)(B) to mean “closely related to” and not as “include.”
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.