19 U.S.C. § 1483
Repealed. Pub. L. 97–446, title II, § 201(c), Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2349
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases, 1940–1999 · leading case: Old Repub. Ins. v. Hansa World Cargo Serv., Inc., 51 F. Supp. 2d 457 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).
Old Repub. Ins. v. Hansa World Cargo Serv., Inc., 51 F. Supp. 2d 457 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). “” Further, Duferco USA cites 19 U.S.C. § 1483 (1) in support of the contention that the importer of record is considered the owner of the imported goods for the purposes of attached duties.”
Ramon Azurin Gregorio Araneta v. William Von Raab, in His Capacity as Comm'r of Customs of the United States Customs Serv., 803 F.2d 993 (9th Cir. 1986). “The court supported this conclusion by examining the legislative history of a repealed Customs statute, 19 U.S.C. § 1483 (1983). This section provided that property imported into the United States was held to be the property of the consignee, who in turn evidenced his rights to…”
United States v. Paul David Sutton, Jr., 446 F.2d 916 (9th Cir. 1971). “It may be that 19 U.S.C. § 1483 , concerning “consignee as the owner of merchandise,” makes §§ 1484 and 1485 applicable to a person importing merchandise into the United States in a vehicle, in his baggage or on his person.”
S. Stern & Co. v. The United States, 331 F.2d 310 (C.C.P.A. 1963). “In making entry, appellant filed an order bill of lading bearing the endorsement of the consignor thus qualifying under the administrative provisions of 19 U.S.C. § 1483 , rendering the goods as the property of such consignee.”
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. United States of Am., 370 F.2d 870 (5th Cir. 1967). “Paul could not recover from the third-party defendants by being subrogated to the rights of the government [creditor], under the theory that the nominal consignee [Zugasti] was considered the owner and by statute 19 U.S.C. § 1483 , 2 was the principal obligor under the bond;…”
Nat'l Customs Brokers & Forwarders Ass'n of Am. v. United States, 723 F. Supp. 1511 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1989). “590 , 721, 19 U.S.C. § 1483 (1930), amended, Pub.L. 95-410, 92 Stat.”
Pasco Terminals, Inc. v. United States, 416 F. Supp. 1242 (Cust. Ct. 1976). “Dunnington and Arnold, which entered the merchandise as importer of record and nominal consignee and indisputedly was liable to the government for the payment of the duties, was the importer and sole consignee for tariff purposes.”
William L. Babb v. United States, 252 F.2d 702 (5th Cir. 1958). “Appellant contends that the word “consignee” is limited and defined by 19 U.S.C.A. § 1483 (1). See Footnote (3), supra.”
R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc. v. Donald Vincent, Tr. of Chemo Puro Mfg. Corp., Bankrupt, 309 F.2d 65 (2d Cir. 1962). “19 U.S. C. § 1483. The consignee, in order to expedite entry of the goods, may remove them under bond.”
Blumenthal Print Works v. United States, 51 F. Supp. 208 (E.D. La. 1943). “19 U.S.C.A. §§ 1483 , 1484(a), 1505, 1557.”
United States v. Daniel F. Young, Inc., 46 F. Supp. 373 (S.D.N.Y. 1942). “But he shall not be liable “for any additional or increased duties if (1) he declares at the time of entry that he is not the actual owner of the merchandise, (2) he furnishes the name and address of such owner, and (3) within ninety days from the date of entry he produces a…”
Wedemann & Godknecht, Inc. v. United States, 72 Cust. Ct. 14 (Cust. Ct. 1974). “[ 19 U.S.C.A. § 1483 .] Sec. 484. Entry oe Merchandise.”
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.