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. § 1528

Taxes not to be construed as duties

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

No tax or other charge imposed by or pursuant to any law of the United States shall be construed to be a customs duty for the purpose of any statute relating to the customs revenue, unless the law imposing such tax or charge designates it as a customs duty or contains a provision to the effect that it shall be treated as a duty imposed under the customs laws. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or restrict the jurisdiction of the United States Court of International Trade or the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1957–2018 · leading case: United States v. Maverick Mktg., LLC, 2018 CIT 84 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Maverick Mktg., LLC, 2018 CIT 84 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). · cites it 9× “Further, they argue that FETs are not customs duties, because 19 U.S.C. § 1528 disallows a tax not explicitly recognized as a customs duty to be a customs duty.”
Bmw Mfg. Corp. v. United States, 241 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2001). · cites it 3× “§ 4462(f)(1) nor 19 U.S.C. § 1528 (1994) rendered applicable the customs duty exemption in 19 U.”
United States v. Gateway Imp. Mgmt., Inc., 2018 CIT 83 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). · cites it 11× “Further, they argue that FETs are not customs duties, because 19 U.S.C. § 1528 disallows a tax not explicitly recognized as a customs duty to be a customs duty.”
BMW Mfg. Corp. v. United States, 1999 CIT 95 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999). · cites it 3× “Second, section 4662(f)(1) of Title 26 requires the HMT to be treated as a customs duty for administrative and enforcement purposes, and 19 U.S.C. § 1528 requires that a tax is to be construed as a customs duty if it is to be treated as a customs duty.”
United States v. Guerlain, Inc., 155 F. Supp. 77 (S.D.N.Y. 1957). “The defendant American Lanvin, by means of the utilization of § 526 of the Tariff Act of 1930 ( 19 U.S.C. § 1528 , 19 U.S.C.A. § 1526 ), has been and is excluding potential competition in the sale of Lanvin toilet goods in interstate and foreign commerce by preventing 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.