18 U.S.C. § 549

Removing goods from customs custody; breaking seals

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

Whoever, without authority, affixes or attaches a customs seal, fastening, or mark, or any seal, fastening, or mark purporting to be a customs seal, fastening, or mark to any vessel, vehicle, warehouse, or package; or

Whoever, without authority, willfully removes, breaks, injures, or defaces any customs seal or other fastening or mark placed upon any vessel, vehicle, warehouse, or package containing merchandise or baggage in bond or in customs custody; or

Whoever maliciously enters any bonded warehouse or any vessel or vehicle laden with or containing bonded merchandise with intent unlawfully to remove therefrom any merchandise or baggage therein, or unlawfully removes any merchandise or baggage in such vessel, vehicle, or bonded warehouse or otherwise in customs custody or control; or

Whoever receives or transports any merchandise or baggage unlawfully removed from any such vessel, vehicle, or warehouse, knowing the same to have been unlawfully removed—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 41 cases, 1930–2013 · leading case: United States v. Hugo Sarmiento, Thomas K. Fahey, Alfonso Irribarren

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Hugo Sarmiento, Thomas K. Fahey, Alfonso Irribarren (1985) ca11 · cites it 4× “§§ 963 , 952 (1982); 8 and (4) theft from Customs custody, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 549 , 2 (1982). 9 A jury trial commenced on April 27,1982.”

Gasho v. United States (1994) ca9 · cites it 4× “The Gashos were booked for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 549 , which forbids unlawful removal of property from Customs custody.”

O'BRIEN v. United States (1967) scotus · cites it 2× “Petitioners in this case, Charles O'Brien and Thomas Parisi, were convicted on several counts of removing merchandise from a bonded area under the supervision of the United States Customs Service, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 549 . The items involved were, on the first count,…”

United States v. Yuri Izurieta (2013) ca11 “Based on the evidence presented at trial, the court agrees that the government may have been able to pursue convictions under a variety of laws, including 18 U.S.C. § 549 , 21 U.S.C. §§ 331 (a), 333(a), etc.”

United States v. Claude Nolan Harold (1979) ca5 · cites it 3× “TUTTLE, Circuit Judge: The appellant challenges his conviction by a jury on charges of willfully removing from United States Customs custody or control imported merchandise which had not been released by the Customs Service in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 549 and of possession of…”

United States v. Charles Green (1975) ca2 · cites it 2× “Appellants along with 16 co-defendants were charged in a fourteen-count indictment with conspiracy and with substantive violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 549 , 659, 1962, and 2314 (1970).”

United States v. William J. Johnson (1983) ca5 “And under 18 U.S.C. § 549 , the court in United States v.”

Williams v. United States (1946) scotus “After a cession of jurisdiction by the State and after being memorialized to do so by the legislature of South Dakota, Congress, in 1903, granted jurisdiction specifically to the courts of the United States for the District of South Dakota oyer actions charging any person with…”

United States v. Slocum (1983) ca11 · cites it 2× “Count III — Bert Slocum knowingly received the birds so removed from customs custody or control in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 549 ; 4. Count IV — All defendants except Louise Slocum knowingly removed birds from quarantine in violation of USDA regulations and 21 U.”

United States v. Albert Gillette Rogers (1986) ca10 · cites it 5× “” 2 *1002 Defendant could have been charged under 18 U.S.C. § 549 , which makes it a crime to willfully break, without authority, any customs seal placed upon a vehicle in customs custody; to remove any merchandise or baggage in customs custody; or to transport any such items,…”

Clarence Ernest Beardslee, A/K/A Clarence Everett Beardslee v. United States (1967) ca8 · cites it 2× “The governing statute was § 329 of the old criminal code, then 18 U.S.C. § 549 . This former § 549 was not restricted in its application, as the present § 1153 is, to an Indian defendant, but applied instead to “any person” charged with one of the specified major crimes…”

Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach (2003) ca9 “Thus, in Gasho , for example, where the defendant was arrested for “unlawful removal” of property in the custody of the United States Customs Service, under 18 U.S.C. § 549 , the arrest could alternatively have been justified under 18 U.”

Show all 41 citing cases →

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.