U.S. Code » Title 19 » Chapter CHAPTER 1— COLLECTION DISTRICTS, PORTS, AND OFFICERS

19 U.S.C. § 2

Rearrangement and limitation of districts; changing locations

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

The President is authorized from time to time, as the exigencies of the service may require, to rearrange, by consolidation or otherwise, the several customs-collection districts and to discontinue ports of entry by abolishing the same or establishing others in their stead. The President is authorized from time to time to change the location of the headquarters in any customs-collection district as the needs of the service may require.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1967–2015 · leading case: Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc., 6 P.3d 669 (Cal. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc., 6 P.3d 669 (Cal. 2000). “" Because unconscionability is a reason for refusing to enforce contracts generally, it is also a valid reason for refusing to enforce an arbitration agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281, which, as noted, provides that arbitration agreements are "valid,…”
California State Auto. Ass'n v. Superior Court, 177 Cal. App. 3d 855 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “( 19 U.S.C.A. § 2 , Annex A to Tariff Schedules of the United States, Schedule "D"; see Ballentine's Law Dict.”
United States v. Diaz, 274 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (D. Utah 2003). “§§ 841 (c)(2), and 846, and 19 U.S.C. § 2 and punishable under 21 U.S.”
Fountain v. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc., 265 F. Supp. 630 (E.D. La. 1967). “19 U.S.C. § 2 . 8 . 15 C.F.R. 400.100 & ff.”
Trade Act Restrictions on the Extension of Most-Favored-Nation Rights (OLC 1987). · cites it 4× “It should be noted that the present statutory scheme denies the “fast track” option to the President if “the Com m ittee on Finance o f the Senate o r the C om m ittee on W ays and M eans o f the H ouse o f R epresentatives disapproved o f the negotiation o f such agreem ent.”
In re Thomas Lytle & Ellen Lytle, No. 12-15-00216-CV (Tex. App.—Tyler Sept. 3, 2015). “See 19 U.S.C. § 2 . Propriety of Summary Judgment 1615; 49 U.”
United States v. Chambers, No. 95-5362 (4th Cir. Sept. 10, 1996). “§ 846 and 19 U.S.C. §2 . In addition, George Chambers was convicted of two counts of possessing with intent to distribute in excess of 50 grams of cocaine base, under 21 U.”
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.