19 U.S.C. § 1497

Penalties for failure to declare

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 19 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In general(1) Any article which—(A) is not included in the declaration and entry as made or transmitted; and(B) is not mentioned before examination of the baggage begins—(i) in writing by such person, if written declaration and entry was required, or(ii) orally, if written declaration and entry was not required;shall be subject to forfeiture and such person shall be liable for a penalty determined under paragraph (2) with respect to such article.(2) The amount of the penalty imposed under paragraph (1) with respect to any article is equal to—(A) if the article is a controlled substance, either $500 or an amount equal to 1,000 percent of the value of the article, whichever amount is greater; and(B) if the article is not a controlled substance, the value of the article.(b) Value of controlled substances(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the value of any controlled substance shall, for purposes of this section, be equal to the amount determined by the Secretary in consultation with the Attorney General of the United States, to be equal to the price at which such controlled substance is likely to be illegally sold to the consumer of such controlled substance.(2) The Secretary and the Attorney General of the United States shall establish a method of determining the price at which each controlled substance is likely to be illegally sold to the consumer of such controlled substance.(June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title IV, § 497, 46 Stat. 728; Pub. L. 99–570, title III, § 3116, Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–83; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7367(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4479; Pub. L. 103–182, title VI, § 612, Dec. 8, 1993, 107 Stat. 2170.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in act Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 356, title IV, § 497, 42 Stat. 964. That section was superseded by section 497 of act June 17, 1930, comprising this section, and repealed by section 651(a)(1) of the 1930 act.

A prior provision for forfeiture of any article subject to duty found in baggage, and not mentioned to the collector before whom entry was made, and for a penalty of treble the value of the article, was contained in R.S. § 2802, prior to repeal by act Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 356, title IV, § 642, 42 Stat. 989.

Amendments

1993—Subsec. (a)(1)(A). Pub. L. 103–182, § 612(1), inserted “or transmitted” after “made”.

Subsec. (a)(2)(A). Pub. L. 103–182, § 612(2), amended subpar. (A) generally. Prior to amendment, subpar. (A) read as follows: “if the article is a controlled substance, 1,000 percent of the value of the article; and”.

1988—Subsec. (a)(2)(A). Pub. L. 100–690 substituted “1,000 percent” for “200 percent”.

1986—Pub. L. 99–570 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section read as follows: “Any article not included in the declaration and entry as made, and, before examination of the baggage was begun, not mentioned in writing by such person, if written declaration and entry was required, or orally if written declaration and entry was not required, shall be subject to forfeiture and such person shall be liable to a penalty equal to the value of such article.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 64 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1949–2024 · leading case: United States v. Von Neumann, 474 U.S. 242 (1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Von Neumann, 474 U.S. 242 (1986). · cites it 10× “I Title 19 U. S. C. § 1497 [1] provides that any article not declared upon entry into the United States which by law *244 must be declared is subject to forfeiture or to a penalty equaling the value of the article.”

United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998). · cites it 2× “2, 1799, §§ 46, 79, 84, 1 Stat. 662 , 687, 694 (failing to declare goods; failing to reexport goods; making false entries on forms); Act of Aug.”

United States v. Maximiliano Sanchez-Escareno, Adolpho Ayala Sanchez & David Garcia Lopez, 950 F.2d 193 (5th Cir. 1991). · cites it 4× “There, agents with the United States Customs Service advised appellee that they were seizing his car and that he was personally subject to a civil penalty under 19 U.S.C. § 1497 2 for importation of undeclared articles.”

One Lot Emerald Cut Stones & One Ring v. United States, 409 U.S. 232 (1972). · cites it 3× “728 , 19 U. S. C. § 1497 . 2 Klementova intervened in the proceeding and argued that his acquittal of charges of violating 18 U.”

Commonwealth v. Brown, 469 A.2d 1371 (Pa. 1983). · cites it 2× “To establish a violation of this section the government was required to prove the physical act of unlawful importation as well as a knowing and wilful intent to defraud the United States. The court that tried the criminal charge specifically found that the government had failed…”

United States v. Hosep Krikor Bajakajian, Aka: Joe Bajakajian, 84 F.3d 334 (9th Cir. 1996). · cites it 2× “There, the Court upheld the forfeiture of imported goods pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1497 , 4 where the defendant failed to declare one lot of emerald cut stones and a ring upon his entry into the United States.”

United States v. Davis, 648 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2011). “The Takings Clause Davis is also not entitled to compensation under the Takings Clause.”

United States v. Arthur E. Hall, 559 F.2d 1160 (9th Cir. 1977). · cites it 2× “Subsequently, he was sentenced to one year’s probation on condition that he “consent” to the entry of a civil decree of forfeiture of the rings pursuant to the provisions of 19 U.S.C. § 1497 . He consented to the condition, the rings were forfeited to the government, and his…”

Daryl Standlee v. B. J. Rhay, 557 F.2d 1303 (9th Cir. 1977). “There the Court held that a forfeiture proceeding pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1497 was not barred by an earlier acquittal of criminal charges stemming from the same acts.”

Von Neumann v. United States, 660 F.2d 1319 (9th Cir. 1981). · cites it 9× “The district court found that von Neumann violated 19 U.S.C. § 1497 by failing to declare the car and thus the seizure was proper.”

United States v. Two Hundred Ninety-Five Ivory Carvings & Marvin Segal, 689 F.2d 850 (9th Cir. 1982). · cites it 2× “On April 20, 1979, the United States filed a complaint in the United States Western District Court for the District of Washington, seeking forfeiture of the carvings, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §§ 1497 and 1592, and a civil penalty equal to the value of the carvings not declared…”

United States v. $359,500 in United States Currency, 645 F. Supp. 638 (W.D.N.Y. 1986). · cites it 2× “” The trial court found that he had an opportunity to declare the jewelry. Id. at 972-73 . The government contends that the notice requirement of due process is satisfied by the filing and service of a complaint in forfeiture.”

Show all 64 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.