28 U.S.C. § 2642
Analysis of imported merchandise
The Court of International Trade may order an analysis of imported merchandise and reports thereon by laboratories or agencies of the United States or laboratories accredited by the Customs Service under section 499(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1955–2025 · leading case: Quebell P. Parker v. Scrap Metal Processors, 386 F.3d 993 (11th Cir. 2004).
Quebell P. Parker v. Scrap Metal Processors, 386 F.3d 993 (11th Cir. 2004). “See 28 U.S.C. § 2642 . Assuming that the five-year statute of limitations applies, we find that other evidence supports the jury’s determination that the defendants accepted prohibited waste.”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Pentagon Capital Mgmt. PLC, 725 F.3d 279 (2d Cir. 2013). “Aside from appellants' assertion that the disgorgement award should be considered a penalty because it incorporated profits earned by PSPF, an argument we reject, we do not understand the appellants to argue that a disgorgement award would be subject to the statute of…”
United States v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 143 F. Supp. 2d 1054 (W.D. Wis. 2001). “The important question is whether the five-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2642 for legal remedies applies to claims for equitable relief by the United States.”
New York v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 263 F. Supp. 2d 650 (W.D.N.Y. 2003). “3 ("nothing in the Clean Air Act or 28 U.S.C. § 2642 precludes the Government from seeking injunctive relief beyond a five year statute of limitations”); see also Westvaco Corp.”
Riggs v. Curran, 863 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2017). “alleging that Defendants violated a permit” and ‘‘[t]he parties have identified 28 U.S.C. § 2642 as a relevant federal statute of limitations.”
Vill. of Riverdale v. 138th Street Jt. Venture, 527 F. Supp. 2d 760 (N.D. Ill. 2007). “Statute of Limitations Defendants claim that 28 U.S.C. § 2642 bars Riverdale’s RCRA claim in its entirety.”
United States v. Illinois Power Co., 245 F. Supp. 2d 951 (S.D. Ill. 2003). “Although Defendants appear to seek summary judgment with regard to the civil penalties and injunctive relief requested in the first claim for relief, nothing in the Clean Air Act or 28 U.S.C. § 2642 precludes the Government from seeking injunctive relief beyond a five year…”
Humane Soc'y of the United States v. Brown, 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 1104 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995). “B As shown above, the Driftnet Enforcement Act required the Secretary of Commerce initially to identify each nation whose nationals or vessels were conducting large-scale driftnet fishing beyond the exclusive economic zone of any nation and to notify the President and those…”
United States v. Hallmark Constr. Co., 14 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (N.D. Ill. 1998). “§ 2462 provides that: Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, an action, suit or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture .”
Atari Caribe, Inc. v. United States, 799 F. Supp. 99 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1992). “28 U.S.C. § 2642 (added May 24, 1949) states: The Customs Court under its rules and in its discretion may permit amendment of protests, appeals for reappraisement, applications for review, petitions for remission and pleadings.”
Sierra Club v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 834 F.2d 1517 (9th Cir. 1987). “Although the statute provides that a citizen sues “on his own behalf,” any penalties recovered from such an action are paid into the United States Treasury.”
United States v. Telluride Co., 884 F. Supp. 404 (D. Colo. 1995). “The comments in SM are pertinent: The statute of limitations [ 28 U.S.C. § 2642 ] is aimed exclusively at restricting the time within which actions may be brought to recover fines, penalties and forfeitures.”
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.