19 U.S.C. § 1521
Repealed. Pub. L. 103–182, title VI, § 618, Dec. 8, 1993, 107 Stat. 2180
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1950–2006 · leading case: United States v. Utex Int'l Inc., & Sentry Ins. Co., 857 F.2d 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
United States v. Utex Int'l Inc., & Sentry Ins. Co., 857 F.2d 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “§ 1520 (c)(1), or within two years on account of fraud under 19 U.S.C. § 1521 . The liquidation was final.”
United States v. Cherry Hill Textiles, Inc., & Int'l Cargo & Sur. Ins. Co., 112 F.3d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “The government has not suggested the presence of fraud in this case, which might have justified a reliquidation under former 19 U.S.C. § 1521 (1988); reliquidation would not be available under 19 U.”
Lonnie M. Woodrum v. S. Ry. Co., 750 F.2d 876 (11th Cir. 1985). “, 19 U.S.C. § 1521 and 41 U.S.C. § 321 . The parties cite only one case, Merchants Despatch Transportation Corp.”
United States v. Appendagez, Inc., 560 F. Supp. 50 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1983). “The applicable statutory provision, 19 U.S.C. § 1521 , provides that if the appropriate customs officer finds probable cause to believe that there is fraud in the case, he may reliquidate an entry within two years after the date of liquidation or last reliquidation.”
United States v. Menard, Inc., 795 F. Supp. 1182 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1992). “The Appendagez Court held: The applicable statutory provision, 19 U.S.C. § 1521 , provides that if the appropriate customs officer finds probable cause to believe that there is fraud in the case, he may reliquidate an entry within two years after the date of liquidation or last…”
United States v. Jac Natori Co., 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 348 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993). “IV Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs claim for duties is based on the argument that the applicable statute of limitations is 19 U.S.C. § 1521 , which provides: If the appropriate customs officer finds probable cause to believe there is fraud in the case, he may…”
Hector Rivera Siaca, D/B/A Guayaberas Don Hector v. The United States, 754 F.2d 988 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “He has acquiesced in and not protested a determination under 19 U.S.C. § 1521 that he participated in a fraud, accepting arguendo his own assertion that he was not a party to the surety’s CIT appeal.”
Siaca v. United States, 585 F. Supp. 668 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1984). “dated under 19 U.S.C. § 1521 (1982). It was established that plaintiff owed well over $100,000 in duties.”
United States v. Nat'l Semiconductor Corp., 2006 CIT 90 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “And, before its repeal in 1993, section 521 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“Act”), formerly 19 U.S.C. § 1521 , provided for reliquidation of entry on Customs’ initiative if fraud was discovered within two years of entry, which in turn was a protestable event.”
Am. Motorists Ins. Co. v. United States, 5 Ct. Int'l Trade 33 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1983). “” Defendant, in opposition, contends that although some documents were stamped with a legend indicating that the entries were being reliquidated under the authority of section 520(cXD, the entries were, in fact, reliquidated pursuant to section 521 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as…”
Enron Oil Trading & Transp. Co. v. United States, 15 Ct. Int'l Trade 511 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1991). “19 U.S.C. § 1521 (1991) (Reliquidation on account of fraud).”
Zwyns v. United States, 25 Cust. Ct. 161 (Cust. Ct. 1950). “Later, and within 2 years after the date of liquidation, the collector, acting pursuant to the provisions of section 521 of the Tariff Act of 1930 ( 19 U. S. C. § 1521 ), 2 with “probable cause to believe there is fraud in the case,” reliquidated the entries, classifying the…”
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.