19 U.S.C. § 1460
Repealed. Pub. L. 99–570, title III, § 3115(b), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–83
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1971–2006 · leading case: United States v. Frank Gunnar Williams, 617 F.2d 1063 (5th Cir. 1980).
United States v. Frank Gunnar Williams, 617 F.2d 1063 (5th Cir. 1980). “§ 1436 (failure to report entry of vessel); 19 U.S.C. § 1460 (failure to file manifest); 19 U.”
One Lot Emerald Cut Stones & One Ring v. United States, 409 U.S. 232 (1972). “§ 545 and 19 U. S. C. § 1460 . The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agrees with the view of the Fifth Circuit in the present case.”
Lee v. Thornton, 370 F. Supp. 312 (D. Vt. 1974). “§ 1459 and the statutory penalty that could be assessed under 19 U.S.C. § 1460 . Like Lee, he was informed that he could file an immediate petition for remission and mitigation of penalties pursuant to 19 U.”
Lee v. Thornton, 538 F.2d 27 (2d Cir. 1976). “§ 881 , assessed a penalty of $1845, the apparent value of the van, and informed that the van and merchandise were subject to forfeiture under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1460 and 1595a and 21 U.S.C.”
Lee v. Thornton, 420 U.S. 139 (1975). “717 and 757, as amended, 19 U. S. C. §§ 1460 and 1618, that mandate procedures to effect forfeiture and remission or mitigation of penalties imposed after Border Patrol agents apprehended them and seized their vehicles when they crossed the border from Canada without passing…”
Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Gonzales, 237 F.R.D. 120 (E.D. Pa. 2006). “Contention Interrogatory 18: For each of the Web pages located on the CD-ROM submitted as Defendant’s Exhibit 48, and printed out as Defendant’s Exhibits 49-58 and entered into evidence in this matter on January 25,1999 during the examination of Damon Hecker, state whether you…”
United States v. Two Hundred & One, Fifty Pound Bags of Furazolidone, 52 F.R.D. 222 (D.N.D. 1971). “§ 545 , forfeiture is sought pursuant to both 19 U.S.C.A. § 1460 and 18 U.S.C.A. § 545 .”
United States v. Ingham, 502 F.2d 1287 (5th Cir. 1974). “§ 1436 (failure to report entry of vessel) ; 19 U.S.C. § 1460 (failure to file manifest) ; 19 U.”
Lee v. Thornton, 398 F. Supp. 970 (D. Vt. 1975). “§ 881 (importation of a controlled substance), and whose vehicle had become subject to forfeiture under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1460 , 1594, the three-judge court held that he was entitled to the same procedural safeguards as Rich with the exception that customs officials could not be…”
Von Neumann v. United States, 660 F.2d 1319 (9th Cir. 1981). “Although seizure in Lee was pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §§ 1460 , 1594, and 1595a, and in the instant case was pursuant to 19 U.”
Mitsubishi Int'l Corp. v. United States, 81 Cust. Ct. 145 (Cust. Ct. 1978). “In that action 19 U.S.C. §§ 1460 and 1618 were challenged insofar as they mandated procedures to effect forfeiture and remission or mitigation of penalties imposed after border patrol agents apprehended appellants and seized their vehicle when they entered the United States from…”
Mitsubishi Int'l Corp. v. United States, 454 F. Supp. 458 (Cust. Ct. 1978). “§§ 1460 and 1618 were challenged insofar as they mandated procedures to effect forfeiture and remission or mitigation of penalties imposed after border patrol agents apprehended appellants and seized their vehicle when they entered the United States from Canada without passing…”
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.