United States v. Washington International Insurance
United States Court of International Trade
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
AQUILINO, Senior Judge.
Tariff acts of the United States have long provided for penalties for inadequate or omitted information with regard to imposition of duties on goods upon entry into the country. E.g., Act of March 3, 1791, § 13, 3 Stat. 199, 202; 19 U.S.C. § 1592(a)(1), (c) (1992). Moreover, the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, has provided for government recovery, of unpaid duties, “whether or not a monetary penalty is assessed”, 1 which provision the courts have held to apply to an importer’s surety. See, e.g., United States v. Blum, 858 F.2d 1566 (Fed.Cir.1988); United States…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- United States v. CottonSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Gustafson v. Alloyd Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1995
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Blue Chip Alliance, LLC v. CHETU, Inc.District Court, S.D. Florida · 2024
- Evanston Insurance Company v. Mesoamerican Builders, Inc.District Court, M.D. Florida · 2022
- United States v. Optrex America, Inc.United States Court of International Trade · 2006
- United States v. World Commodities Equipment Corp.United States Court of International Trade · 2008