22 U.S.C. § 401
SHORT TITLE.
“This title may be cited as the ‘Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012’.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 62
cases, 1945–2020 · leading case: Gerardo Serrano v. U.S. Customs & Border, 975 F.3d 488 (5th Cir. 2020).
Gerardo Serrano v. U.S. Customs & Border, 975 F.3d 488 (5th Cir. 2020). “§ 1595a(d), 22 U.S.C. § 401 , 22 U.S.C. § 2778 , and 22 C.”
United States v. Twenty Miljam-350 IED Jammers, 669 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2011). “Kaplan, Judge, ordering the forfeiture to plaintiff United States, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 401 (a), of certain communication-jamming devices, to wit, the defendant-m-rem Twenty Miljam-350 IED Jammers (the “Jammers”), owned by Wallach and a company of which he was the majority…”
United States v. George Whiting, & Theodore Whiting, 781 F.2d 692 (9th Cir. 1986). “-8(b)(6) provides: “The customs office is authorized under [ 22 U.S.C. § 401 11 ] to seize and detain any commodities [exported or suspected of being exported in violation of the EAA].”
United States v. Odutayo, 406 F.3d 386 (5th Cir. 2005). “Statutory authority provided under 22 U.S.C. § 401 . Inspector Taylor acted under the authority of 22 U.”
United States v. Sierra-Garcia, 760 F. Supp. 252 (E.D.N.Y 1991). “That extension of the border search doctrine to persons or things leaving the country is also reflected in at least two statutes, namely, 22 U.S.C. § 401 and 31 U.S.C. *266 § 5317.”
Alde, S.A. v. United States, 28 Fed. Cl. 26 (Fed. Cl. 1993). “In the affidavit attached to the Customs Service’s application for the warrant, agent Roberto Jusino stated that plaintiff’s aircraft had been seized previously for landing rights violations and was suspected of violating United States Export Declaration laws, in particular, 22…”
Winters v. Working, 510 F. Supp. 14 (W.D. Tex. 1980). “He sought to recover the value of a pickup truck that had been seized by Customs officials under 22 U.S.C. § 401 and summarily forfeited in administrative proceedings pursuant to 19 U.”
United States v. One 1985 Mercedes-Benz, 300 Sd, Vin Wdbcb20c6fa177831, & Sadrudin Kabani, Claimant-Appellant, 14 F.3d 465 (9th Cir. 1994). “1 The issue is whether a car used to export currency in violation of Section 5316’s reporting requirements may be forfeited under the Espionage Act, 22 U.S.C. § 401 (1988), which provides for the forfeiture of vehicles used in exporting “any arms or munitions of war or other…”
Sam Rubin v. United States, 289 F.2d 195 (5th Cir. 1961). “This appeal is from a judgment under 22 U.S.C.A. § 401 , as amended August 13, 1953, 67 Stat.”
United States v. Portrait of Wally, 663 F. Supp. 2d 232 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). “§ 1595 (a) (c), and 22 U.S.C. § 401 (a). All parties now move for summary judgment.”
Kuehne & Nagel, Inc. v. United States, 17 Cl. Ct. 11 (Ct. Cl. 1989). “As a result, the Customs Service seized the shipment, citing 22 U.S.C. § 401 , 1 which authorizes the Customs Service to seize articles that are being exported “in violation of the law.”
United States of Am., Plaintiff-Appellee-Appellant v. One Boeing 707 Aircraft, Etc., Servotech Int'l Establishment, 750 F.2d 1280 (5th Cir. 1985). “The basis of this civil forfeiture action is 22 U.S.C. § 401 which prohibits the illegal exportation of war materials.”
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.