19 U.S.C. § 1
SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
[Omitted.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases, 1933–2020 · leading case: State v. Bradley, 719 P.2d 546 (Wash. 1986).
State v. Bradley, 719 P.2d 546 (Wash. 1986). “§ 1103 (1982); 19 U.S.C. §§ 1 , 3 (1982); see also United States v.”
United States v. Maria Lucia Collins, 764 F.2d 647 (9th Cir. 1985). “1317 (1965), and in 19 U.S.C. § 1 annotation, promulgated pursuant to the Reorganization Act of 1949, codified as amended at 5 U.”
Am. Meat Inst. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 968 F. Supp. 2d 38 (D.D.C. 2013). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. (2012). This regulatory scheme — which, like 7 U.”
Allchem Performance Prods., Inc. v. Aqualine Warehouse, LLC, 878 F. Supp. 2d 779 (S.D. Tex. 2012). “, including without limitation its provisions concerning antidumping violations found at 19 U.S.C. § 1673 et seq. and its provisions concerning North American Free Trade, 19 U.”
Iglesias v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 525 F. Supp. 547 (D.D.C. 1981). “See, 19 U.S.C. § 1 , et seq. 10 . The legislative history indicates that this was the foremost consideration in enacting Exemption 7.”
United States v. Anthony J. Peters, Appeal of Walter F. Kelly & Sandra J. Hays, Forfeiture Purchasers-Appellants, 777 F.2d 1294 (7th Cir. 1985). “The forfeiture provisions of the Customs Statutes, 19 U.S.C. § 1 , et seq., control the disposition of the property forfeited under the Controlled Substances Act: “The provisions of law relating to the seizure, summary and judicial forfeiture, and condemnation of property for…”
BASF Corp. v. United States, 427 F. Supp. 2d 1200 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “See also 19 U.S.C. § 1 (Supp. II 2002); 6 U.S.C. § 542 n.”
Washington Int'l Ins. v. United States, 678 F. Supp. 902 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988). “Nevertheless, it is important to note that this court possesses "all the powers in law and equity of, or as conferred by statute upon, a district court of the United States," 28 U.”
Collins v. United States, 65 F.2d 545 (5th Cir. 1933). “Appellants, William Collins, Lee Brewer, and Fred Walton, were convicted on an indictment which charged, in the first count, a conspiracy between them and a number of others to violate the Customs Laws (19 US CA § 1 et seq.) and the National Prohibition Act (27 USCA § 1 et seq.”
Carriso, Inc. v. United States, 106 F.2d 707 (9th Cir. 1939). “See 19 U.S.C.A. § 1 and historical note thereto.”
United States v. Ford Motor Co., 414 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “While admitting that “the instant action is a claim for penalties and duties under [ 19 U.S.C. § 1 ]592, and not an importer’s claim for duty refunds under 19 U.”
Mosby v. United States (E.D.N.C. 2020). “” 19 U.S.C.§ 1 6074. □□□□ the instant forfeiture was initiated, this notice required publication “once a week for at least 3 successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the judicial district in which the processing forfeiture is brought.”
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.