19 U.S.C. § 2461

Authority to extend preferences

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

The President may provide duty-free treatment for any eligible article from any beneficiary developing country in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter. In taking any such action, the President shall have due regard for—(1) the effect such action will have on furthering the economic development of developing countries through the expansion of their exports;(2) the extent to which other major developed countries are undertaking a comparable effort to assist developing countries by granting generalized preferences with respect to imports of products of such countries;(3) the anticipated impact of such action on United States producers of like or directly competitive products; and(4) the extent of the beneficiary developing country’s competitiveness with respect to eligible articles.(Pub. L. 93–618, title V, § 501, as added Pub. L. 104–188, title I, § 1952(a), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1917.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 2461, Pub. L. 93–618, title V, § 501, Jan. 3, 1975, 88 Stat. 2066; Pub. L. 98–573, title V, § 502, Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 3018, related to authority to extend preferences, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 104–188.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Pub. L. 104–188, title I, § 1953, Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1926, provided that:“(a)In General.—The amendments made by this subtitle [subtitle J (§§ 1951–1954) of title I of Pub. L. 104–188, enacting this subchapter, amending sections 2702, 3011, 3202, 3331, and 3551 of this title, section 1444–2 of Title 7, Agriculture, section 4711 of Title 15, Commerce and Trade, sections 262p–4p and 2191a of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse, and section 871 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code, and enacting provisions set out as a note under section 2101 of this title] apply to articles entered on or after October 1, 1996.“(b)Retroactive Application.—“(1)General rule.—Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 [19 U.S.C. 1514] or any other provision of law and subject to subsection (c)—“(A) any article that was entered—“(i) after July 31, 1995, and“(ii) before January 1, 1996, and to which duty-free treatment under title V of the Trade Act of 1974 [this subchapter] would have applied if the entry had been made on July 31, 1995, shall be liquidated or reliquidated as free of duty, and the Secretary of the Treasury shall refund any duty paid with respect to such entry, and“(B) any article that was entered—“(i) after December 31, 1995, and“(ii) before October 1, 1996, and to which duty-free treatment under title V of the Trade Act of 1974 [this subchapter] (as amended by this subtitle) would have applied if the entry had been made on or after October 1, 1996, shall be liquidated or reliquidated as free of duty, and the Secretary of the Treasury shall refund any duty paid with respect to such entry.“(2)Limitation on refunds.—No refund shall be made pursuant to this subsection before October 1, 1996.“(3)Entry.—As used in this subsection, the term ‘entry’ includes a withdrawal from warehouse for consumption.“(c)Requests.—Liquidation or reliquidation may be made under subsection (b) with respect to an entry only if a request therefor is filed with the Customs Service, within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Aug. 20, 1996], that contains sufficient information to enable the Customs Service—“(1) to locate the entry; or“(2) to reconstruct the entry if it cannot be located.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 27 cases, 1980–2019 · leading case: Florsheim Shoe Co., Div. of Interco, Inc. v. United States, 570 F. Supp. 734 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1983).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Florsheim Shoe Co., Div. of Interco, Inc. v. United States, 570 F. Supp. 734 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1983). · cites it 7× “Section 501 of the Trade Act of 1974 ( 19 U.S.C. § 2461 ). 1 In this connection, India has been designated by the President as a beneficiary developing country for purposes of Title V of the Trade Act of 1974 (see section 502 ( 19 U.”

Luggage & Leather Goods Mfrs. of Am., Inc. v. United States, 588 F. Supp. 1413 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1984). · cites it 2× “BERNARD NEWMAN, Senior Judge: Introduction The Court is again faced with a challenge to the President’s construction of a statutory provision under the Generalized System of Preferences (“GSP”), a program of great significance to this nation’s international trade policy,…”

Indus. Chemicals, Inc. v. United States, 941 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “beneficiary developing countr[ies],” 19 U.S.C. § 2461 (2012), among them, India, see Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, General Note 4(a) (2013) (listing India as a GSP designated beneficiary coun- try).”

United States v. Modes, Inc., 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 627 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993). “19 U.S.C. §2461 , et seq., (1988). In accordance with an agreement between Budhrani and Chou, purchases of jewelry from the Chou companies took place under a double invoicing system.”

Alcan Aluminum Corp. v. United States, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 1238 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997). “0 percent of the total value of the various sets, represented de minimis elements thereof and therefore did not defeat the “product of” requirement of the Generalized System of Preferences, 19 U.S.C. § 2461 et seq. 10 Whereupon the plaintiff asks: * * * If Customs applies the de…”

United States v. Modes, Inc., 804 F. Supp. 360 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1992). “2066 , codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. § 2461 et seq., (1988). Notwithstanding the duty-free status of the goods at the time of the entries in question, the Government contends that false price terms on the invoices were material to an intent to defraud the revenue since…”

Meyer Corp., U.S. v. United States, 2017 CIT 110 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). “Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) with respect to the plaintiffs claims on certain sets of cookware imported into the United States for preferential treatment under the Generalized System of Preferences (“GSP”), 19 U.S.C. § 2461 , et sequentes. Exported from Thailand, a…”

Motion Sys. Corp. v. Bush, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1247 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). “19 U.S.C. § 2461 (3X1). Section 421 vests in the President the discretion whether to provide import relief.”

Int'l Labor Rights Educ. & Rsch. Fund v. George Bush, in His Off. Capacity as President, 954 F.2d 745 (D.C. Cir. 1992). · cites it 2× “In 1985, Congress amended the GSP to add the worker rights provisions which require the President to deny beneficiary developing country status to any country which has not made some effort to extend employment rights to workers.”

West Bend Co., Div. of Dart Indus., Inc. v. United States, 576 F. Supp. 630 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1983). · cites it 9× “), created by Title V of the Trade Act of 1974 ( 19 U.S.C. §§ 2461 et seq.). *632 Defendant has moved to dismiss plaintiffs claim for duty-free treatment under the G.”

Godchaux-Henderson Sugar Co., Inc. v. United States, 496 F. Supp. 1326 (Cust. Ct. 1980). “( 19 U.S.C. §§ 2461 , et seq.), Congress enacted the “Generalized System of Preferences” (GSP), whereby the President was granted authority to extend duty-free treatment to eligible articles from any beneficiary developing country designated by him.”

Int'l Labor Rights Educ. & Rsch. Fund v. Bush, 752 F. Supp. 490 (D.D.C. 1990). “The GSP authorizes the President to grant duty-free status to goods from “beneficiary developing countries,” 19 U.S.C. § 2461 , and to withdraw, suspend or limit that status.”

Show all 27 citing cases →

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.