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

19 U.S.C. § 81r

Revocation of grants

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 19 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Procedure for revocation

In the event of repeated willful violations of any of the provisions of this chapter by the grantee, the Board may revoke the grant after four months’ notice to the grantee and affording it an opportunity to be heard. The testimony taken before the Board shall be reduced to writing and filed in the records of the Board together with the decision reached thereon.

(b) Attendance of witnesses and production of evidence

In the conduct of any proceeding under this section for the revocation of a grant the Board may compel the attendance of witnesses and the giving of testimony and the production of documentary evidence, and for such purpose may invoke the aid of the district courts of the United States.

(c) Nature of order of revocation; appeal

An order under the provisions of this section revoking the grant issued by the Board shall be final and conclusive, unless within ninety days after its service the grantee appeals to the court of appeals for the circuit in which the zone is located by filing with the clerk of said court a written petition praying that the order of the Board be set aside. Such order shall be stayed pending the disposition of appellate proceedings by the court. The clerk of the court in which such a petition is filed shall immediately cause a copy thereof to be delivered to the Board and it shall thereupon file in the court the record in the proceedings held before it under this section, as provided in section 2112 of title 28. The testimony and evidence taken or submitted before the Board, duly certified and filed as a part of the record, shall be considered by the court as the evidence in the case.

(June 18, 1934, ch. 590, § 18, 48 Stat. 1002; June 25, 1948, ch. 646, § 32(a), 62 Stat. 991; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 127, 63 Stat. 107; Pub. L. 85–791, § 11, Aug. 28, 1958, 72 Stat. 945.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1958—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 85–791 substituted “thereupon file in the court” for “forthwith prepare, certify, and file in the court a full and accurate transcript of” and “as provided in section 2112 of title 28” for “the charges, the evidence, and the order revoking the grant” in third sentence.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesChange of Name

Act June 25, 1948, eff. Sept. 1, 1948, as amended by act May 24, 1949, substituted “court of appeals” for “circuit court of appeals”.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1940–1995 · leading case: Miami Free Zone Corp. v. Foreign Trade Zones Bd., 22 F.3d 1110 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Miami Free Zone Corp. v. Foreign Trade Zones Bd., 22 F.3d 1110 (D.C. Cir. 1994). · cites it 4× “…unrelated to the Board's revocation standard, which requires "repeated willful violations” of the Act by the grantee. 19 U.S.C. § 81r(a) (1988).”
Phibro Energy, Inc. v. Franklin, 822 F. Supp. 759 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993). · cites it 2× “In this action the government argues the FTZ Act precludes judicial review of FTZ Board decisions in all instances except for the revocation of a FTZ grant under 19 U.S.C. § 81r. Therefore, the government urges the FTZ Board can be as arbitrary and capricious as it would like in…”
Fountain v. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc., 265 F. Supp. 630 (E.D. La. 1967). · cites it 3× “9 *635 Indeed, if, by use of the language under the jurisdiction of the United States,” Congress had intended that the Federal Courts would be vested with jurisdiction over any and all litigation arising in or in connection with Foreign-Trade Zones, we question whether 19 U.S.C.…”
Phibro Energy, Inc. v. Brown, 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 663 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995). · cites it 3× “The CAFC explained that 19 U.S.C. § 81r is the only statement in the statute of Congressional intent regarding judicial review of Board orders.”
Conoco Inc. v. United States Foreign-Trade Zones Bd., 790 F. Supp. 279 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1992). “Instead, the FTZA provides for judicial review only in cases involving the revocation of foreign-trade zone grants under 19 U.S.C. § 81r(c). DISCUSSION This Court must determine whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.”
Conoco, Inc. v. United States Foreign-Trade Zones Bd., 18 F.3d 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “See 19 U.S.C. § 81r(c). . This threshold requirement does not appear in the statute, but finds expression in certain of our precedents.”
United Drug Co. v. Helvering, 108 F.2d 637 (2d Cir. 1940). · cites it 2× “§ 825l(b); 19 U.S.C. § 81r, 19 U.S.C.A. § 81r.”
Miami Free Zone Corp. v. Foreign-Trade Zones Bd., 803 F. Supp. 442 (D.D.C. 1992). “The FTZ Act at 19 U.S.C. § 81r specifically addresses revocation by the Board of an FTZ authorized by the Board and provides in § 81r(c) for direct review by the Court of Appeals for the circuit where the revoked FTZ is located.”
19 U.S.C. § 81r(a): 1 case
Miami Free Zone Corp. v. Foreign Trade Zones Bd., 22 F.3d 1110 (D.C. Cir. 1994). “…unrelated to the Board's revocation standard, which requires "repeated willful violations” of the Act by the grantee. 19 U.S.C. § 81r(a) (1988).”
19 U.S.C. § 81r(b): 1 case
Fountain v. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc., 265 F. Supp. 630 (E.D. La. 1967). “9 *635 Indeed, if, by use of the language under the jurisdiction of the United States,” Congress had intended that the Federal Courts would be vested with jurisdiction over any and all litigation arising in or in connection with Foreign-Trade Zones, we question whether 19 U.S.C.…”
19 U.S.C. § 81r(c): 6 cases
Miami Free Zone Corp. v. Foreign Trade Zones Bd., 22 F.3d 1110 (D.C. Cir. 1994). “…unrelated to the Board's revocation standard, which requires "repeated willful violations” of the Act by the grantee. 19 U.S.C. § 81r(a) (1988).”
Conoco Inc. v. United States Foreign-Trade Zones Bd., 790 F. Supp. 279 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1992). “Instead, the FTZA provides for judicial review only in cases involving the revocation of foreign-trade zone grants under 19 U.S.C. § 81r(c). DISCUSSION This Court must determine whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.”
Phibro Energy, Inc. v. Brown, 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 663 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995). “The CAFC explained that 19 U.S.C. § 81r is the only statement in the statute of Congressional intent regarding judicial review of Board orders.”
Phibro Energy, Inc. v. Franklin, 822 F. Supp. 759 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993). “In this action the government argues the FTZ Act precludes judicial review of FTZ Board decisions in all instances except for the revocation of a FTZ grant under 19 U.S.C. § 81r. Therefore, the government urges the FTZ Board can be as arbitrary and capricious as it would like in…”
Fountain v. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc., 265 F. Supp. 630 (E.D. La. 1967). “9 *635 Indeed, if, by use of the language under the jurisdiction of the United States,” Congress had intended that the Federal Courts would be vested with jurisdiction over any and all litigation arising in or in connection with Foreign-Trade Zones, we question whether 19 U.S.C.…”
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.