U.S. Code » Title 19 » Chapter CHAPTER 1A— FOREIGN TRADE ZONES

19 U.S.C. § 81f

Application for establishment and expansion of zone

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 19 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Application for establishment; requirementsEach application shall state in detail—(1) The location and qualifications of the area in which it is proposed to establish a zone, showing (A) the land and water or land or water area or land area alone if the application is for its establishment in or adjacent to an interior port; (B) the means of segregation from customs territory; (C) the fitness of the area for a zone; and (D) the possibilities of expansion of the zone area;(2) The facilities and appurtenances which it is proposed to provide and the preliminary plans and estimate of the cost thereof, and the existing facilities and appurtenances which it is proposed to utilize;(3) The time within which the applicant proposes to commence and complete the construction of the zone and facilities and appurtenances;(4) The methods proposed to finance the undertaking;(5) Such other information as the Board may require.(b) Amendment of application; expansion of zone

The Board may upon its own initiative or upon request permit the amendment of the application. Any expansion of the area of an established zone shall be made and approved in the same manner as an original application.

(June 18, 1934, ch. 590, § 6, 48 Stat. 1000.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1969–1993 · leading case: Phibro Energy, Inc. v. Franklin, 822 F. Supp. 759 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Phibro Energy, Inc. v. Franklin, 822 F. Supp. 759 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993). “As to the merits of the Board’s decision, plaintiffs argue the Board acted arbitrarily, capriciously and abused its discretion when it ignored the applicable statutory criteria for granting or denying subzone status set forth in 19 U.S.C. §§ 81f(b), 81g (1988). Plaintiffs claim…”
Armco Steel Corp. v. Stans, 303 F. Supp. 262 (S.D.N.Y. 1969). “However, the Act and the Regulations provide that the nature of the operations contemplated for performance in the sub-zone must be specified in detail in the application (19 U.S.C. § 81f; 15 C.F.R. §§ 400.600-400.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 81f(b) — 1 case
Phibro Energy, Inc. v. Franklin, 822 F. Supp. 759 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993). “As to the merits of the Board’s decision, plaintiffs argue the Board acted arbitrarily, capriciously and abused its discretion when it ignored the applicable statutory criteria for granting or denying subzone status set forth in 19 U.S.C. §§ 81f(b), 81g (1988). Plaintiffs claim…”
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.