U.S. Code » Title 19 » Chapter CHAPTER 4— TARIFF ACT OF 1930 › Subtitle SUBTITLE III— ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS › Part Part III— Ascertainment, Collection, and Recovery of Duties

19 U.S.C. § 1499

Examination of merchandise

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 19 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Entry examination(1) In general

Imported merchandise that is required by law or regulation to be inspected, examined, or appraised shall not be delivered from customs custody (except under such bond or other security as may be prescribed by the Secretary to assure compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and instructions which the Secretary or the Customs Service is authorized to enforce) until the merchandise has been inspected, appraised, or examined and is reported by the Customs Service to have been truly and correctly invoiced and found to comply with the requirements of the laws of the United States.

(2) ExaminationThe Customs Service—(A) shall designate the packages or quantities of merchandise covered by any invoice or entry which are to be opened and examined for the purpose of appraisement or otherwise;(B) shall order such packages or quantities to be sent to such place as is designated by the Secretary by regulation for such purpose;(C) may require such additional packages or quantities as the Secretary considers necessary for such purpose; and(D) shall inspect a sufficient number of shipments, and shall examine a sufficient number of entries, to ensure compliance with the laws enforced by the Customs Service.(3) Unspecified articlesIf any package contains any article not specified in the invoice or entry and, in the opinion of the Customs Service, the article was omitted from the invoice or entry—(A) with fraudulent intent on the part of the seller, shipper, owner, agent, importer of record, or entry filer, the contents of the entire package in which such article is found shall be subject to seizure; or(B) without fraudulent intent, the value of the article shall be added to the entry and the duties, fees, and taxes thereon paid accordingly.(4) Deficiency

If a deficiency is found in quantity, weight, or measure in the examination of any package, the person finding the deficiency shall make a report thereof to the Customs Service. The Customs Service shall make allowance for the deficiency in the liquidation of duties.

(5) Information required for release

If an examination is conducted, any information required for release shall be provided, either electronically or in paper form, to the Customs Service at the port of examination. The absence of such information does not limit the authority of the Customs Service to conduct an examination.

(b) Testing laboratories(1) Accreditation of private testing laboratoriesThe Customs Service shall establish and implement a procedure, under regulations promulgated by the Secretary, for accrediting private laboratories within the United States which may be used to perform tests (that would otherwise be performed by Customs Service laboratories) to establish the characteristics, quantities, or composition of imported merchandise. Such regulations—(A) shall establish the conditions required for the laboratories to receive and maintain accreditation for purposes of this subsection;(B) shall establish the conditions regarding the suspension and revocation of accreditation, which may include the imposition of a monetary penalty not to exceed $100,000 and such penalty is in addition to the recovery, from a gauger or laboratory accredited under paragraph (1), of any loss of revenue that may have occurred, but the Customs Service—(i) may seek to recover lost revenue only in cases where the gauger or laboratory intentionally falsified the analysis or gauging report in collusion with the importer; and(ii) shall neither assess penalties nor seek to recover lost revenue because of a good faith difference of professional opinion; and(C) may provide for the imposition of a reasonable charge for accreditation and periodic reaccreditation.The collection of any charge for accreditation and reaccreditation under this section is not prohibited by section 58c(e)(6) of this title.(2) Appeal of adverse accreditation decisions

A laboratory applying for accreditation, or that is accredited, under this section may contest any decision or order of the Customs Service denying, suspending, or revoking accreditation, or imposing a monetary penalty, by commencing an action in accordance with chapter 169 of title 28 in the Court of International Trade within 60 days after issuance of the decision or order.

(3) Testing by accredited laboratories

When requested by an importer of record of merchandise, the Customs Service shall authorize the release to the importer of a representative sample of the merchandise for testing, at the expense of the importer, by a laboratory accredited under paragraph (1). The testing results from a laboratory accredited under paragraph (1) that are submitted by an importer of record with respect to merchandise in an entry shall, in the absence of testing results obtained from a Customs Service laboratory, be accepted by the Customs Service if the importer of record certifies that the sample tested was taken from the merchandise in the entry. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit in any way or preclude the authority of the Customs Service to test or analyze any sample or merchandise independently.

(4) Availability of testing procedure, methodologies, and informationTesting procedures and methodologies used by the Customs Service, and information resulting from any testing conducted by the Customs Service, shall be made available as follows:(A) Testing procedures and methodologies shall be made available upon request to any person unless the procedures or methodologies are—(i) proprietary to the holder of a copyright or patent related to such procedures or methodologies, or(ii) developed by the Customs Service for enforcement purposes.(B) Information resulting from testing shall be made available upon request to the importer of record and any agent thereof unless the information reveals information which is—(i) proprietary to the holder of a copyright or patent; or(ii) developed by the Customs Service for enforcement purposes.(5) Miscellaneous provisionsFor purposes of this subsection—(A) any reference to a private laboratory includes a reference to a private gauger; and(B) accreditation of private laboratories extends only to the performance of functions by such laboratories that are within the scope of those responsibilities for determinations of the elements relating to admissibility, quantity, composition, or characteristics of imported merchandise that are vested in, or delegated to, the Customs Service.(c) DetentionsExcept in the case of merchandise with respect to which the determination of admissibility is vested in an agency other than the Customs Service, the following apply:(1) In general

Within the 5-day period (excluding weekends and holidays) following the date on which merchandise is presented for customs examination, the Customs Service shall decide whether to release or detain the merchandise. Merchandise which is not released within such 5-day period shall be considered to be detained merchandise.

(2) Notice of detentionThe Customs Service shall issue a notice to the importer or other party having an interest in detained merchandise no later than 5 days, excluding weekends and holidays, after the decision to detain the merchandise is made. The notice shall advise the importer or other interested party of—(A) the initiation of the detention;(B) the specific reason for the detention;(C) the anticipated length of the detention;(D) the nature of the tests or inquiries to be conducted; and(E) the nature of any information which, if supplied to the Customs Service, may accelerate the disposition of the detention.(3) Testing results

Upon request by the importer or other party having an interest in detained merchandise, the Customs Service shall provide the party with copies of the results of any testing conducted by the Customs Service on the merchandise and a description of the testing procedures and methodologies (unless such procedures or methodologies are proprietary to the holder of a copyright or patent or were developed by the Customs Service for enforcement purposes). The results and test description shall be in sufficient detail to permit the duplication and analysis of the testing and the results.

(4) Seizure and forfeiture

If otherwise provided by law, detained merchandise may be seized and forfeited.

(5) Effect of failure to make determination(A) The failure by the Customs Service to make a final determination with respect to the admissibility of detained merchandise within 30 days after the merchandise has been presented for customs examination, or such longer period if specifically authorized by law, shall be treated as a decision of the Customs Service to exclude the merchandise for purposes of section 1514(a)(4) of this title.(B) For purposes of section 1581 of title 28, a protest against the decision to exclude the merchandise which has not been allowed or denied in whole or in part before the 30th day after the day on which the protest was filed shall be treated as having been denied on such 30th day.(C) Notwithstanding section 2639 of title 28, once an action respecting a detention is commenced, unless the Customs Service establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that an admissibility decision has not been reached for good cause, the court shall grant the appropriate relief which may include, but is not limited to, an order to cancel the detention and release the merchandise.(June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title IV, § 499, 46 Stat. 728; June 25, 1938, ch. 679, §§ 15, 16(a), 52 Stat. 1084; Pub. L. 91–271, title III, § 301(k), June 2, 1970, 84 Stat. 289; Pub. L. 103–182, title VI, § 613(a), Dec. 8, 1993, 107 Stat. 2171.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in act Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 356, title IV, § 499, 42 Stat. 965. That section was superseded by section 499 of act June 17, 1930, comprising this section, and repealed by section 651(a)(1) of the 1930 act.

A prior provision prohibiting delivery of merchandise liable to be inspected or appraised, until it had been inspected or appraised, or until the packages sent to be inspected or appraised, should be found correctly invoiced, and be so reported, with a further provision as to the taking of bonds conditioned for delivery of the merchandise, and the forfeiture of such bonds, was contained in R.S. § 2899.

Provisions substantially similar to those in this section concerning the number of packages to be examined (not including the provision for designation of a less number by the Secretary of the Treasury) and concerning packages found to contain articles not specified in the invoice, with a further provision for remission of the forfeiture, were contained in R.S. § 2901.

A prior provision, concerning deficiencies somewhat similar to that in this section, was contained in R.S. § 2921.

A special provision concerning the number of packages to be examined and appraised at the port of New York was contained in R.S. § 2939.

A provision concerning returns by weighers, gaugers, and measurers, was contained in R.S. § 2890.

All of the foregoing sections of the Revised Statutes were repealed by act Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 356, title IV, § 642, 42 Stat. 989.

Amendments

1993—Pub. L. 103–182 amended section generally, substituting present provisions for provisions which required imported merchandise to be inspected, examined, appraised, and reported by appropriate customs officer to have been truly and correctly invoiced and found to comply with requirements of laws of the United States prior to release of such merchandise from customs custody.

1970—Pub. L. 91–271 substituted references to appropriate customs officer or such officer for references to collector or appraiser wherever appearing, and struck out references to duties of appraiser.

1938—Act June 25, 1938, amended section generally and among other changes inserted provision relating to invalidity of appraisements made after effective date of Customs Administrative Act of 1938.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1970 Amendment

For effective date of amendment by Pub. L. 91–271, see section 203 of Pub. L. 91–271, set out as a note under section 1500 of this title.

Effective Date of 1938 Amendment

Amendment by act June 25, 1938, effective on thirtieth day following June 25, 1938, except as otherwise specifically provided, see section 37 of act June 25, 1938, set out as a note under section 1401 of this title.

Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions, personnel, assets, and liabilities of the United States Customs Service of the Department of the Treasury, including functions of the Secretary of the Treasury relating thereto, to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see sections 203(1), 551(d), 552(d), and 557 of Title 6, Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6. For establishment of U.S. Customs and Border Protection in the Department of Homeland Security, treated as if included in Pub. L. 107–296 as of Nov. 25, 2002, see section 211 of Title 6, as amended generally by Pub. L. 114–125, and section 802(b) of Pub. L. 114–125, set out as a note under section 211 of Title 6.

Existing Laboratories

Pub. L. 103–182, title VI, § 613(b), Dec. 8, 1993, 107 Stat. 2174, which related to accreditation of private testing laboratories, was repealed by Pub. L. 116–113, title VI, § 601, Jan. 29, 2020, 134 Stat. 78, effective on the date the USMCA entered into force (July 1, 2020).

Executive DocumentsTransfer of Functions

Functions of all other officers of Department of the Treasury and functions of all agencies and employees of such Department transferred, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of the Treasury, with power vested in him to authorize their performance or performance of any of his functions, by any of such officers, agencies, and employees, by Reorg. Plan No. 26 of 1950, §§ 1, 2, eff. July 31, 1950, 15 F.R. 4935, 64 Stat. 1280, 1281, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 63 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1933–2024 · leading case: Ali v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214 (2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ali v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214 (2008). · cites it 2× “Compare 19 U.S.C. § 1499 (a) (authorizing customs agents to examine and detain imported merchandise); § 1595a(c)(3) (authorizing customs *846 officials to detain merchandise introduced contrary to law); 26 U.”
H & H Wholesale Servs., Inc. v. United States, 437 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). · cites it 8× “2057, 2171 (1993) (amending 19 U.S.C. § 1499 (2000)). After presentation of goods for entry, Customs has five days, excluding weekends and holidays, in which *1341 to either release or detain those goods.”
United States v. Yuri Izurieta, 710 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2013). · cites it 3× “” 19 U.S.C. § 1499 (a)(1). The goods are considered to be on “hold” and may not be distributed until formal authorization for entry into the commerce of the United States is provided by the FDA.”
United States v. Howard Cotterman, 709 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “See 19 U.S.C. § 1499 (providing that imported goods are permitted entry only after Customs clears them); United States v.”
In Re Advent Corp., 24 B.R. 612 (1st Cir. BAP 1982). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1499 (1980), in order for imported merchandise to be released from the custody of the United States Customs Service (Customs) to an importer, a bond or other security is required to be in effect.”
Cbb Grp., Inc. v. United States, 783 F. Supp. 2d 1248 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011). · cites it 5× “Plaintiffs claim arises under section 515 and also under section 499(c) of the Tariff Act, which applies “[ejxeept in the case of merchandise with respect to which the determination of admissibility is vested in an agency other than the Customs Service____” 19 U.S.C. § 1499 (c).…”
Jazz Photo Corp. v. United States, 353 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). · cites it 3× “See 19 U.S.C. § 1499 (c). B. Absence of Factual Record Sufficient to Eliminate 10-Day Automatic Stay Period The court may take notice from the public record in the bankruptcy proceeding that Fuji, a creditor participating in those proceedings, is seeking to effect the conversion…”
Blink Design, Inc. v. United States, 2014 CIT 56 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014). · cites it 8× “) A contested number of the entries were deemed excluded from entry, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1499 (c)(5)(A), on various dates in December 2013 and January 2014.”
United States v. Theodore Stewart, 729 F.3d 517 (6th Cir. 2013). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1499 (a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (b)(l-3), and (c)(1).”
Tempco Mktg. v. United States, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 191 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997). · cites it 5× “Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1499 (c)(5)(A) (1994), the imports were deemed excluded on September 19,1996.”
Cherry Lane Fashion Grp., Inc. v. United States, 712 F. Supp. 190 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1989). · cites it 4× “” As authority for its detention, Customs invoked 19 U.S.C. § 1499 (1982), which provides that: Imported merchandise, required by law or regulations .”
CDCOM (U.S.A.) Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 435 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997). · cites it 3× “Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1499 (c)(5)(B), Customs took no action on the Petition within thirty days.”
United States v. Claude Nolan Harold, 588 F.2d 1136 (5th Cir. 1979). · cites it 2× “The trial court gave the following instructions concerning customs custody which, in part, tracks 19 U.S.C. § 1499 : Imported merchandise comes into Customs custody at the moment of its arrival in this country.”
Shah Bros., Inc. v. United States, 751 F. Supp. 2d 1303 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010). · cites it 4× “Under 19 U.S.C. § 1499 , Customs may detain, seize and forfeit merchandise.”
Ninestar Corp. v. United States, 2024 CIT 24 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2024). “Customs applies the rebuttable presumption requirement of the UFLPA through its general authority to examine and decide whether to detain, release, exclude, or seize merchandise under 19 U.S.C. § 1499 and associated regulations.”
LKQ Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. & Sec'y Kirstjen Nielsen, 369 F. Supp. 3d 577 (D. Del. 2019). “See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1499 (2), 1595a(c)(2)(C), 1526.”
One World Techs., Inc. v. United States, 380 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019). · cites it 2× “58, 59; see 19 U.S.C. § 1499 (c)(5)(A) ; 19 U.S.C. § 1514 ; 19 U.”
Zojirushi Am. Corp. v. United States, 2016 CIT 78 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016). “, 19 U.S.C. §§ 1499 (c)(5)(B), 1515(b). Congress did not do so in § 1515(a).”
All. Assurance Co., Ltd. v. United States, 252 F.2d 529 (2d Cir. 1958). “Pursuant to statutory requirements ( 19 U.S.C.A. § 1499 ), on January 13, 1953 the goods were removed to Public Stores, 201 Varick Street, New York, N.”
United States v. UPS Customhouse Brokerage, Inc., 686 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010). “(d) In any civil action commenced to review any order or decision of the Customs Service under [ 19 U.S.C. § 1499 (b) ], the court shall review the action on the basis of the record before the Customs Service at the time of issuing such decision or order.”
United States v. Slocum, 708 F.2d 587 (11th Cir. 1983). “Suffice it to say that a shipment of birds discovered to carry VVND and thus condemned to extermination does not comply with the laws of this country; USDA regulations specifically state: If [imported] birds are found free of evidence of communicable diseases of poultry during…”
United States v. Sohnen, 298 F. Supp. 51 (E.D.N.Y 1969). “§ 482 (authority to conduct border searches of “any vehicle, beast, or person, on which or whom * * [customs officials] shall suspect there is merchandise which is subject to duty, or shall have been introduced into the United States in any manner contrary to law * * *, and to…”
PRP Trading Corp. v. United States, 2012 CIT 126 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012). · cites it 2× “’s Reply at 2 (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1499 (c)(5)(A) (2006) 1 ). Two of Plaintiffs five entries were deemed excluded — D050125496-1 and D05-0125498-7 — because Customs did not act upon them within the requisite thirty days from the date the merchandise was presented for examination.”
Globemaster, Inc. v. United States, 340 F. Supp. 974 (Cust. Ct. 1972). · cites it 2× “§ 2899 (1875), 19 U.S.C. § 1499 ; Customs Regulations Arts.”
People v. Sloss, 34 Cal. App. 3d 74 (Cal. Ct. App. 1973). “I The Search Warrant Appellant contends that the search warrant was based on tainted evidence because the package was not lawfully opened by United States Customs Agent Killewald or by Agent Cunningham, who showed the contents to Officer Hill.”
Hatzlachh Supply Co. v. United States, 217 Ct. Cl. 423 (Ct. Cl. 1978). “In Alliance, the court was faced with a situation where the goods which subsequently disappeared had merely been detained for inspection pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1499 , while, in our present case, the goods had actually been seized subject to forfeiture pursuant to 19 U.”
Wirtgen Am., Inc. v. United States, 2020 CIT 70 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020). “19 U.S.C. § 1499 (c)(5)(C). In granting a permanent injunction, a court must be satisfied that: “(1) [the plaintiff] has suffered an irreparable injury;” (2) legal remedies, including monetary damages, “are inadequate to compensate the injury;” (3) the balance of the parties’…”
Ninestar Corp. v. United States, 2023 CIT 169 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023). “Customs applies the rebuttable presumption requirement of the UFLPA through its general authority to examine and decide whether to detain, release, exclude, or seize merchandise under 19 U.S.C. § 1499 and associated regulations.”
Sakar Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 466 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff asserts jurisdiction under § 1581(a) on the basis of 19 U.S.C. § 1499 , under which the failure by Customs to make a final determination on the admissibility of detained merchandise within thirty days of the presentation of that merchandise for examination is treated…”
Nat'l Customs Brokers & Forwarders Ass'n of Am. v. United States, 18 Ct. Int'l Trade 754 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1499 (1988). Furthermore, 19 C.”
Grover Melvin Mungo, Samuel Harris & Daniel Simms, Jr. v. United States, 423 F.2d 1351 (4th Cir. 1970). · cites it 3× “Another federal statute, 19 U.S.C. § 1499 , provides in part: “Imported merchandise, required by law or regulations made in pursuance thereof to be inspected, examined, or appraised, shall not be delivered from customs custody, except under such bond or other security as may be…”
Textile & Apparel Grp., Am. Importers Ass'n v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 410 F.2d 1052 (D.C. Cir. 1969). “Section 499 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 1499 . 19 . Cf. § 9 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.”
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. § 1499 ; 19 CFR § 8.28 . By furnishing such a bond, the appellant here undertook liability for the duties which it paid.”
United States v. Marti, 321 F. Supp. 59 (E.D.N.Y 1970). “"); 19 U.S.C. § 1499 (inspection, examination and appraisal of "[ i ] mported merchandise "); 19 U.”
Plastilite Corp. v. Kassnar Imports, 508 F.2d 824 (C.C.P.A. 1975). “Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1499 2 the Customs Service required the floats to be returned for destruction for allegedly infringing appellant’s registration.”
Azurin v. United States, 632 F. Supp. 30 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986). “” Section 499 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1499 (1982), provides in part: Imported merchandise, required by law or regulations made in pursuance thereof to be inspected, examined, or appraised, shall not be delivered from customs custody, except under such…”
All. Assurance Co. v. United States, 146 F. Supp. 118 (S.D.N.Y. 1956). · cites it 2× “The customs broker made an entry at Public Stores, pursuant to 19 U.S.C.A. § 1499 . An entry consists of a group of documents which enables the importer of the goods to enter the foreign merchandise into American commerce.”
Matsushita Elec. Co. v. Zeigler, 158 F.3d 1167 (11th Cir. 1998). “Matsushita maintains both that the exception applies because Zeigler was given the authority to inspect and detain Matsushita’s goods under 19 U.S.C. § 1499 and implicit in this authority was the obligation to exercise due care, and because 28 U.”
Libas, Ltd. v. United States, 20 Ct. Int'l Trade 1215 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996). “19 U.S.C. § 1499 (1994). The obligation of the Indian government to stamp exports pursuant to the U.”
Iccs Usa Corp. v. United States, 357 F. Supp. 3d 1314 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). “While Exhibit 11 includes May 26, 2017 as the date of denial, it cites 19 U.S.C. § 1499 (c)(5)(B) and 19 C.F.R. § 174.”
Unichem Enters., Inc. v. United States, 2024 CIT 131 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2024). · cites it 15×
Luxury Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 69 F. Supp. 2d 1364 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999).
People v. Superior Court, 33 Cal. App. 3d 523 (Cal. Ct. App. 1973).
United States v. One 1976 Mercedes 450 SLC, 667 F.2d 1171 (5th Cir. 1982).
United States v. Hou Wan Lee, 264 F. Supp. 804 (S.D.N.Y. 1967).
Inspired Ventures LLC v. United States, 2024 CIT 121 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2024). · cites it 12×
United States v. Daniel F. Young, Inc., 46 F. Supp. 373 (S.D.N.Y. 1942).
Precise Imports Corp. v. Kelly, 378 F.2d 1014 (2d Cir. 1967).
Ann's Trading Co. v. United States, 8 F. Supp. 2d 867 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).
In re Chemo Puro Mfg. Corp., 202 F. Supp. 140 (S.D.N.Y. 1962).
Seaside Food, Inc. v. United States, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 189 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997). · cites it 4×
Genii Trading Co. v. United States, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 195 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997). · cites it 4×
United States v. Marti, 321 F. Supp. 59 (E.D.N.Y 1970).
Keirton USA Inc v. United States Custom & Border Prot. (W.D. Wash. 2021).
Samuel Shapiro & Co., Inc. v. The United States, 403 F.2d 282 (C.C.P.A. 1968).
Samuel Shapiro & Co. v. United States, 59 Cust. Ct. 115 (Cust. Ct. 1967).
Jazz Photo Corp. v. United States, 2005 CIT 7 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005).
United States v. Golden Gate Petroleum Co., 2006 CIT 22 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).
Matsushita Elec. v. Hartsfield, 158 F.3d 1167 (11th Cir. 1998).
Nat'l Sanitary Rag Co. v. Hamilton, 4 F. Supp. 642 (N.D. Cal. 1933).
North Am. Mercantile Co. v. United States, 26 Cust. Ct. 537 (Cust. Ct. 1951).
Strachan Shipping Co. v. United States, 27 Cust. Ct. 10 (Cust. Ct. 1951).
Kraemer v. United States, 28 Cust. Ct. 523 (Cust. Ct. 1952).
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.