19 U.S.C. § 1626

Steel products trade enforcement

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

(a) Export validation requirement

In order to monitor and enforce export measures required by a foreign government or customs union, pursuant to an international arrangement with the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury may, upon receipt of a request by the President of the United States and by a foreign government or customs union, require the presentation of a valid export license or other documents issued by such foreign government or customs union as a condition for entry into the United States of steel mill products specified in the request. The Secretary may provide by regulation for the terms and conditions under which such merchandise attempted to be entered without an accompanying valid export license or other documents may be denied entry into the United States.

(b) Period of applicability

This section applies only to requests received by the Secretary of the Treasury prior to January 1, 1983, and for the duration of the arrangements.

(June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title IV, § 626, as added Pub. L. 96–276, § 153, Oct. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 1202.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1984–2017 · leading case: American Bayridge Corp. v. United States

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

American Bayridge Corp. v. United States (1998) cit · cites it 2× “Modification and revocation of ruling letters were discussed in the old regulations but were not present in 19 U.S.C. § 1626 prior to its amendment by the Mod Act.”

Klockner, Inc. v. United States (1984) cit · cites it 7× “19 U.S.C. § 1626 provides: (a) Export validation requirement In order to monitor and enforce export measures required by a foreign government or customs union, pursuant to an international arrangement with the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury may, upon receipt of a…”

Kent International, Inc. v. United States (2017) cit “subject merchandise were previously classified under the desired tariff provision; (2) that the subject entries are “ ‘substantially identical transaction^]’ ” to the previous treatment; (8) that Customs has made a ‘proposed interpretive -ruling or decision’ ” that would have…”

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.