U.S. Code » Title 49 » Subtitle SUBTITLE IV— INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION › Part PART A— RAIL › Chapter CHAPTER 119— CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES

49 U.S.C. § 11903

Record keeping and reporting violations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar
A person required to make a report to the Board, or make, prepare, or preserve a record, under subchapter III of chapter 111 of this title about transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under this part that knowingly and willfully—(1) makes a false entry in the report or record;(2) destroys, mutilates, changes, or by another means falsifies the record;(3) does not enter business related facts and transactions in the record;(4) makes, prepares, or preserves the record in violation of a regulation or order of the Board; or(5) files a false report or record with the Board,shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both.(Added Pub. L. 104–88, title I, § 102(a), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 851.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 11909 of this title prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, § 102(a).

A prior section 11903, Pub. L. 95–473, Oct. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1457, related to rate, discrimination, and tariff violations, prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, § 102(a). See section 14903 of this title.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1996, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 104–88, see section 2 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases, 1981–1995 · leading case: Maislin Indus., U. S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 497 U.S. 116 (1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Maislin Indus., U. S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 497 U.S. 116 (1990). · cites it 4× “Moreover, any carrier who engaged in such conduct could be punished under 49 U. S. C. § 11903 (b) (1982 ed.). Finally, this risk of intentional misconduct on the part of a carrier has always existed and has never been considered sufficient to justify a less stringent…”
Gelb v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 813 F. Supp. 1022 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). “Justifying its holding, the Court reasoned that punishment for fraudulent conduct, such as a “bait and switch” tactic of negotiating one rate, stating it had been filed when it had not been, and then insisting upon collection of the higher rate, is punishable under 49 U.S.C. §…”
Leweling v. Schnadig Corp., 657 N.E.2d 1107 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1995). · cites it 2× “However, we believe the strong deterrents contained in the statute provide for an adequate and available remedy.”
Rushton v. Saratoga Forest Prods., Inc. (In Re Americana Expressways, Inc.), 172 B.R. 99 (Bankr. D. Utah 1994). · cites it 2× “49 U.S.C. § 11903 (a). 4 . The defendant shipper argues that to pay the difference between the filed rate and the negotiated rate will be economically ruinous to them.”
United States v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., a Corp., 762 F.2d 737 (9th Cir. 1985). “§ 41 (1) (1976) (recodified as amended at 49 U.S.C. § 11903 ), on fifty counts of knowingly granting a concession from its published less-than-truckload (LTL) tariffs to Duncan Ceramics, Inc.”
United States v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., United States of Am. v. Duncan Ceramics, Inc., a Corp., 637 F.2d 1248 (9th Cir. 1981). “The penal provisions of the Elkins Act now appear at 49 U.S.C. § 11903 . Because the crimes charged allegedly took place before the 1978 Act, we use the 1976 codification in referring to the Elkins Act.”
United States v. Mitsubishi Int'l Corp., Union Pac. R.R., & Burlington N., Inc., 677 F.2d 785 (9th Cir. 1982). “§ 41 (1) (now codified at 49 U.S.C. §§ 11903 and 11915). These were violations of railroad freight tariffs that resulted in special favorable treatment for Mitsubishi.”
Sea-Land Serv., Inc. & Sea-Land Freight Serv., Inc. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n & United States of Am., 738 F.2d 1311 (D.C. Cir. 1984). “847 , 847 (1903) (current version at 49 U.S.C. § 11903 (Supp. V 1981)). The convicted parties had entered into a private shipping contract at the then published rate, but continued to abide by the contract price even after the published rate had subsequently been increased.”
Miller v. Armour & Co. (In Re Total Transp., Inc.), 84 B.R. 590 (D. Minn. 1988). “Not only is the carrier required by civil statute to charge and collect the filed rate, but the Elkins Act of 1903, 49 U.S.C. § 11903 (a), also makes it a criminal offense to knowingly depart from the rate on file.”
INF. LTD. v. Spectro Alloys Corp., 651 F. Supp. 1405 (D. Minn. 1987). “49 U.S.C. § 11903 . “Deviation ... is not permitted upon any pretext.”
Maislin Indus., U.S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 705 F. Supp. 1401 (W.D. Mo. 1988). “§ 10762 (a)(1), requires all motor common carriers to publish and file tariffs containing their transportation rate with the ICC. The carrier is obligated to collect the rate published in its tariff ( 49 U.”
Delta Traffic Serv., Inc. v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 684 F. Supp. 769 (D. Conn. 1987). “49 U.S.C. § 11903 (a) and (b). Against this backdrop, the ICC has attempted to resurrect equitable defenses in collection cases such as the one at bar.”
Show all 21 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.