FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 1
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
Effective: March 09, 2006
United States Code Annotated Currentness
Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure (Refs & Annos)
Part I. Crimes (Refs & Annos)
Chapter 27. Customs (Refs & Annos)
§ 545. Smuggling goods into the United States
Whoever knowingly and willfully, with intent to defraud the United States, smuggles, or
clandestinely introduces or attempts to smuggle or clandestinely introduce into the United States
any merchandise which should have been invoiced, or makes out or passes, or attempts to pass,
through the customhouse any false, forged, or fraudulent invoice, or other document or paper; or
Whoever fraudulently or knowingly imports or brings into the United States, any merchandise
contrary to law, or receives, conceals, buys, sells, or in any manner facilitates the transportation,
concealment, or sale of such merchandise after importation, knowing the same to have been
imported or brought into the United States contrary to law-Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Proof of defendant's possession of such goods, unless explained to the satisfaction of the jury,
shall be deemed evidence sufficient to authorize conviction for violation of this section.
Merchandise introduced into the United States in violation of this section, or the value thereof, to
be recovered from any person described in the first or second paragraph of this section, shall be
forfeited to the United States.
The term "United States", as used in this section, shall not include the Virgin Islands, American
Samoa, Wake Island, Midway Islands, Kingman Reef, Johnston Island, or Guam.
CREDIT(S)
(June 25, 1948, c. 645, 62 Stat. 716; Aug. 24, 1954, c. 890, § 1, 68 Stat. 782; Sept. 1, 1954, c.
1213, Title V, § 507, 68 Stat. 1141; June 30, 1955, c. 258, § 2(c), 69 Stat. 242; Sept. 13, 1994,
Pub.L. 103-322, Title XXXII, § 320903(c), Title XXXIII, § § 330004(18), 330016(1)(L), 108
Stat. 2125, 2142, 2147; Oct. 11, 1996, Pub.L. 104-294, Title VI, § 604(b)(23), 110 Stat. 3508;
Mar. 9, 2006, Pub.L. 109-177, Title III, § 310, 120 Stat. 242.)
HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
Revision Notes and Legislative Reports
1948 Acts. Based on § 1593 of Title 19, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Customs Duties (June 17, 1930, c.
497, Title IV, § 593, 46 Stat. 751).
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 2
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
Reference in first paragraph to aiders, contained in words "his, her, or their aiders and abettors"
was omitted as unnecessary since such persons are made principals by § 2 of this title. For the
same reason words "or assists in so doing" in second paragraph were deleted.
Words "shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor," in first paragraph were omitted in view of
definition of misdemeanor in § 1 of this title.
Conviction provision in first paragraph reading "and on conviction thereof" was deleted as
surplusage since punishment cannot be imposed until a conviction is secured.
Minimum punishment provision "nor less than $50" in second paragraph was deleted.
Forfeiture provision was rephrased to make it clear that forfeiture was not dependent upon
conviction.
The final paragraph was added to conform with § 1709 of Title 19, U.S.C., 1940 ed.
Changes were made in phraseology.
1954 Acts. Senate Report No. 2245, see 1954 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 3156.
Senate Report No. 2326, see 1954 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 3900.
1955 Acts. Senate Report No. 690, see 1955 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 2303.
1994 Acts. House Report Nos. 103-324 and 103-489, and House Conference Report No. 103711, see 1994 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 1801.
1996 Acts. House Report No. 104-788, see 1996 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 4021.
2006 Acts. House Conference Report No. 109-333, see 2006 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News,
p. 184.
Statement by President, see 2006 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. S7.
Codifications
Amendment by Pub.L. 109-177, § 310, directing that the third undesignated paragraph of this
section be amended by striking "5 years" and inserting "20 years", was executed by striking "five
years" and inserting "20 years", as the probable intent of Congress.
Amendments
2006 Amendments. Pub.L. 109-177, § 310, in the third undesignated paragraph, struck out "5
years" and inserted "20 years". See Codifications note under this section.
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 3
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
1996 Amendments. Pub.L. 104-294, § 604(b)(23), amending Pub.L. 103-322, § 330004(18),
struck out "Philippine Islands," following "shall not include the" in the final undesignated
paragraph.
1994 Amendments. Pub.L. 103-322, § 320903(c), inserted "or attempts to smuggle or
clandestinely introduce" in the first undesignated paragraph.
Pub.L. 103-322, § 330016(1)(L), substituted "under this title" for "not more than $10,000" in the
third undesignated paragraph.
Pub.L. 103-322, § 330004(18), as amended Pub.L. 104-294, § 604(b)(23), struck out
"Philippine Islands," following "shall not include the" in the final undesignated paragraph.
1955 Amendments. Act June 30, 1955 inserted "Johnston Island".
1954 Amendments. Act Sept. 1, 1954 permitted the forfeiture of the value of merchandise
imported in violation of this section.
Act Aug. 24, 1954 increased the fine from $5,000 to $10,000 and the imprisonment from two
years to five years.
Effective and Applicability Provisions
1996 Acts. Amendment by section 604 of Pub.L. 104-294 effective Sept. 13, 1994, see section
604(d) of Pub.L. 104-294, set out as a note under section 13 of this title.
1955 Acts. Amendment of section by Act June 30, 1955 effective July 1, 1955, see § 2(d) of Act
June 30, 1955, set out as a note under § 1401 of Title 19, Customs Duties.
1954 Acts. Amendment of section by Act Sept. 1, 1954 effective on and after the thirtieth day
following Sept. 1, 1954, see § 601 of Act Sept. 1, 1954, set out as a note under § 160 of Title
19, Customs Duties.
Section 2 of Act Aug. 24, 1954 provided that the amendment of that section shall apply only
with respect to offenses committed on and after Aug. 24, 1954.
CROSS REFERENCES
False shipping manifest or lack of manifest in connection with importation of goods,
penalties, see 19 USCA § 1584.
Forfeitures-Generally, see 28 USCA § 2461 et seq.
Narcotic drugs, see 21 USCA § 881.
Penalty for aiding unlawful importation, see 19 USCA § 1595.
Search of vehicles and persons, see 19 USCA § 482.
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 4
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
Searches and seizures, generally, see Fed.Rules Cr.Proc. Rule 41, 18 USCA.
FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES
See Federal Sentencing Guidelines § § 2Q2.1, 2T3.1, 18 USCA.
CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Enforcement provisions, see 19 CFR § 161.0 et seq.
Forfeitures of articles for false designations, false descriptions and false markings, see 19
CFR § 11.13.
Packing and marking requirements, see 19 CFR § § 11.1 et seq., 12.1 et seq.
Seizures and forfeitures of nonmailable alcoholic beverages, see 19 CFR § 145.54.
United States Custom Service, enforcement of laws for other agencies, see 19 CFR §
161.2.
LAW REVIEW COMMENTARIES
Civil penalties and multiple punishment under the Double Jeopardy Clause:
unanswered questions. David S. Rudstein, 46 Okla.L.Rev. 587 (1993).
Some
LIBRARY REFERENCES
American Digest System
Customs Duties
121.
Corpus Juris Secundum
CJS Customs Duties § 217, Fraudulently or Knowingly Importing or Bringing Into United
States Merchandise Contrary to Law.
RESEARCH REFERENCES
ALR Library
1 ALR, Fed. 2nd Series 415, Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction of Federal Courts.
165 ALR, Fed. 491, When is Hearsay Statement "Present Sense Impression" Admissible Under
Rule 803(1) of Federal Rules of Evidence.
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 5
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
147 ALR, Fed. 273, Jurisdiction of Court of International Trade (28 U.S.C.A. § 1581).
145 ALR, Fed. 481, Construction and Application of United States Sentencing Guideline § §
2G2.1 et Seq., Pertaining to Child Pornography.
121 ALR, Fed. 525, Validity, Construction, and Application of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1956, Which
Criminalizes Money Laundering.
100 ALR, Fed. 156, What Constitutes Playing "Mitigating Role" in Offense Allowing Decrease
in Offense Level Under United States Sentencing Guideline § 3B1.2, U.S.S.G.
58 ALR, Fed. 850, Construction and Application of 18 U.S.C.A. § 542 Prohibiting Entry of
Goods Into Commerce of United States by Means of False Statements.
23 ALR, Fed. 480, What Constitutes "Crime Involving Moral Turpitude" Within Meaning of § §
212(A)(9) and 241(A)(4) of Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.A. § § 1182(A)(9),
1251(A)(4)), and Similar Predecessor Statutes...
20 ALR, Fed. 410, Validity, Construction, and Application of Federal Statutory Provision
(Under 18 U.S.C.A. § 545 and Similar Predecessor Statutes) Making it Offense to Smuggle or
Clandestinely Introduce Into United States...
11 ALR, Fed. 173, What Constitutes Lesser Offenses "Necessarily Included" in Offense
Charged, Under Rule 31(C) of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
4 ALR, Fed. 310, Propriety and Prejudicial Effect of Court-Authorized SEParation of Jury in
Federal Criminal Case.
22 ALR 3rd 1325, Federal Prosecutions Based on Manufacture, Importation, Transportation,
Possession, Sale, or Use of Lsd.
15 ALR 3rd 1357, Power of Court to Make or Permit Amendment of Indictment With Respect to
Allegations as to Property, Objects, or Instruments, Other Than Money.
145 ALR 818, Writ of Coram Nobis After Affirmance.
131 ALR 917, Right to Severance Where Two or More Persons Are Jointly Accused.
107 ALR 634, Are Sentences on Different Counts to be Regarded as for a Single Term or for
SEParate Terms as Regards Pardon, Parole, Probation, Suspension, or Commutation?
92 ALR 663, Stipulation of Parties as to the Law.
73 ALR 567, Statutory Remedy as Exclusive of Remedy by Habeas Corpus Otherwise
Available.
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 6
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
74 ALR 1157, Cross-Examination for Purpose of Showing Bias or Hostility on Part of Witness.
74 ALR 1418, Constitutional Guaranties Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures as
Applied to Search for or Seizure of Intoxicating Liquor.
62 ALR 1466, Communications Between Jurors and Others as Ground for New Trial or Reversal
in Criminal Case.
39 ALR 236, Harrison Narcotic Act.
44 ALR 132, Right to Arrest Without a Warrant for Unlawful Possession or Transportation of
Intoxicating Liquor.
10 ALR 982, Sufficiency of Indictment as Affected by Bill of Particulars.
Encyclopedias
Am. Jur. 2d Customs Duties and Import Regulations § 372, Smuggling; Generally.
Am. Jur. 2d Customs Duties and Import Regulations § 375, Illegally Importing Merchandise.
Am. Jur. 2d Customs Duties and Import Regulations § 376, Illegally Importing Merchandise -Possession of Illegally Imported Goods as Presumptive Violation.
Am. Jur. 2d Customs Duties and Import Regulations §
Unlawfully Imported.
387, Merchandise Smuggled or
Am. Jur. 2d Customs Duties and Import Regulations § 406, Indictment or Information.
Am. Jur. 2d Customs Duties and Import Regulations § 416, Evidence -- Documentary Evidence.
Forms
8 West's Federal Forms § 13347, Actions by the United States.
Treatises and Practice Aids
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition §
Statement.
80:178, What Crimes Involve Dishonesty or False
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 22:1685, Money Laundering Cases; Fraudulent Use of
Financial Institutions.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 37:1179, Intent.
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 7
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 37:1180, Duplicity; Unit of Prosecution.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 37:1187, Presumptions and Burden of Proof.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition §
International Trade.
37:1190, Jurisdiction and Venue -- of Court of
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 37:1191, Standing to Challenge Forfeiture.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 37:1193, Pleadings.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 37:1194, Evidence.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 37:1197, Trial and Judgment.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 37:1382, Action for Penalties Imposed Under Customs
Laws.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 37:1408, Actions Brought by United States to Recover
Civil Penalties or Customs Duties, or to Recover on Bond.
Handbook of Federal Evidence (3d Ed.) § 609:4, Rule 609(A)(2): Crimes of Dishonesty or False
Statement.
Immigration Law and Crimes App C, Appendix C. Selected Model Pleadings.
Immigration Law and Crimes App H, Appendix H. California's Compliance Plan Under
IMMACT § 507.
Immigration Law and Crimes § 2:10, "Relating To" a Controlled Substance.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 3201, Application of Supplemental Rules.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 5145, Establishing the Presumption; the Basic Facts.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 5145, Establishing the Presumption; the Basic Facts.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. RR 303, Rejected Rule 303. Presumptions in Criminal
Cases.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. RR 303, Rejected Rule 303. Presumptions in Criminal
Cases.
Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. § 125.1, Criminal Forfeitures.
NOTES OF DECISIONS
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 8
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
GENERALLY 1-40
OFFENSES 41-80
PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT 81-150
EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES 151-200
FORFEITURES 201-260
I. GENERALLY
<Subdivision Index>
Administrative regulations 7
Alcoholic beverages, merchandise within section 9
Constitutionality 2
Construction with other laws 3
Historical 1
Law governing 5
Liability of officer making seizure 16
Merchandise within section 8-13
Merchandise within section - Generally 8
Merchandise within section - Alcoholic beverages 9
Merchandise within section - Narcotics 10
Merchandise within section - Obscene materials 11
Merchandise within section - Psittacine birds 12
Merchandise within section - Stolen merchandise 13
Narcotics, merchandise within section 10
Obscene materials, merchandise within section 11
Persons subject to penalty 14
Power of Congress 6
Psittacine birds, merchandise within section 12
Purpose 4
Stolen merchandise, merchandise within section 13
Territorial application of section 15
1. Historical
Former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] was substantially the same as R.S. § 3082.
Gillespie v. U.S., C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1926, 13 F.2d 736, certiorari denied 47 S.Ct. 240, 273 U.S.
730, 71 L.Ed. 863.
R.S. § § 2865 and 3082 were substantially reenacted by Act Sept. 21, 1922, c. 356, § 593, 42
Stat. 982. Bailey v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (Ga.) 1925, 5 F.2d 437, certiorari dismissed 46 S.Ct. 12, 269
U.S. 551, 269 U.S. 589, 70 L.Ed. 427.
R.S. § 3082 applied only to the importation of goods illegally packed or absolutely forbidden,
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 9
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
and was not a duplication of R.S. § 2865. U.S. v. One Blue Taffeta Evening Coat, Trimmed
Lace, and Other Women's Clothing, S.D.N.Y.1916, 237 F. 703. Customs Duties
121
2. Constitutionality
This section prohibiting smuggling of goods into United States is not void for vagueness or
overbreadth. U. S. v. Magee, C.A.6 (Mich.) 1978, 586 F.2d 636, certiorari denied 99 S.Ct. 1517,
440 U.S. 966, 59 L.Ed.2d 782. Customs Duties
2
This section which provides that proof of defendant's possession of cocaine which has been
smuggled into the United States, unless explained to the satisfaction of the jury, shall be deemed
evidence sufficient to authorize conviction for smuggling cocaine raises an unconstitutional
presumption of knowledge. U. S. v. Kenaan, C.A.1 (Mass.) 1974, 496 F.2d 181. Controlled
Substances
6
This section prohibiting smuggling goods into United States was not unconstitutional as applied
to defendant charged with failing to invoice and declare 65,000 seconal capsules brought into
United States on theory that it required him to give evidence that would probably have been used
against him in state criminal prosecution. U. S. v. Perez, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1970, 426 F.2d 799,
certiorari denied 91 S.Ct. 83, 400 U.S. 841, 27 L.Ed.2d 76. Criminal Law
393(1)
Former § 1593(c) of Title 19 [now this section] was valid. Barone v. U.S., C.C.A.9 (Cal.) 1938,
94 F.2d 902.
The provision of R.S. § 3082 [now this section] that "whenever, on trial for a violation of this
section, the defendant is shown to have or to have had possession of such goods, such possession
shall be deemed evidence sufficient to authorize conviction, unless the defendant shall explain
the possession to the satisfaction of the jury", did not require a defendant to be a witness against
himself in violation of U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 5. Friedman v. U.S., C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1921, 276
F. 792. Witnesses
293
3. Construction with other laws
Former § 497 of Title 19, fixing definite penalty for importing merchandise contrary to law,
superseded in such respect general penalty provision of National Prohibition Act, former § 1 et
seq. of Title 27. Callahan v. U.S., U.S.Del.1932, 52 S.Ct. 454, 285 U.S. 515, 76 L.Ed. 914.
Customs Duties
121
Prosecution under contrary-to-law provision of this section prohibiting fraudulently or
knowingly importing to bringing into United States any merchandise contrary to law is not
foreclosed with respect to importation of drugs by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, §
301 et seq. of Title 21. Roseman v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1966, 364 F.2d 18, certiorari denied 87
S.Ct. 879, 386 U.S. 918, 17 L.Ed.2d 789, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 880, 386 U.S. 918, 17
L.Ed.2d 789. Criminal Law
29(5.5)
This section, fixing definite penalty for smuggling, was not superseded by § 271 of Title 42,
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 10
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
punishing violating of quarantine laws. Murray v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1954, 217 F.2d 583.
Customs Duties
121
Former § 387 [now 1301] of this title dealing with importation and interstate carriage of lottery
tickets withdrew lottery tickets from the term "merchandise" as found in former § 1593 of Title
19 [now this section] against smuggling and clandestine importations of "merchandise". U.S. v.
Mueller, C.A.5 (Tex.) 1949, 178 F.2d 593. Customs Duties
125
Facilitating the transportation of imported lottery tickets should have been charged as a violation
of former § 387 [now 1301] of this title dealing with the importation and interstate carriage of
lottery tickets rather than as a violation of the more general provisions of former § 1593 of Title
19 [now this section] relating to smuggling and clandestine importations of merchandise. U.S. v.
Mueller, C.A.5 (Tex.) 1949, 178 F.2d 593. Lotteries
20
Former § 443 of Title 31, regarding importation of gold in disregard of regulations and licenses
of Secretary of Treasury issued with view to stabilizing domestic monetary economy, was not
inconsistent with former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] and former § 483 [now 1595a] of
Title 19 directed at impairment of efficiency of customs administration by failure to declare or to
invoice any imported gold, and former § 443 of Title 31 did not repeal former § 1593 of Title
19 [now this section] and former § 483 [now 1595a] of Title 19 as applied to gold, since each
stood for a separate function. U.S. v. Kushner, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1943, 135 F.2d 668, certiorari
denied 63 S.Ct. 1449, 320 U.S. 212, 87 L.Ed. 1850, rehearing denied 64 S.Ct. 32, 320 U.S. 808,
88 L.Ed. 488. Customs Duties
6
The importation of duty-free gold bullion with requisite intent constituted violation of former §
1593 of Title 19 [now this section] and former § 483 [now 1595a] of Title 19, as against
contention that exclusive penalty for any unlawful dealing with gold, including importation, was
under former § 443 of Title 31. U.S. v. Kushner, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1943, 135 F.2d 668, certiorari
denied 63 S.Ct. 1449, 320 U.S. 212, 87 L.Ed. 1850, rehearing denied 64 S.Ct. 32, 320 U.S. 808,
88 L.Ed. 488. Customs Duties
125
Indictment charging conspiracy to import intoxicating liquor without permit and without paying
customs duties sufficiently charged a conspiracy to violate revenue laws, since at time involved
there could be no lawful importation of liquors under National Prohibition Act, former § 1 et
seq. of Title 27, without permit, and offense charged was not affected by repeal of
U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 18. Moyer v. U.S., C.C.A.9 (Cal.) 1935, 78 F.2d 624. Conspiracy
43(6); Constitutional Law
23
Repeal of U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 18 had no effect on prosecutions under former § 1593 of
Title 19 [now this section], as for conspiring to import intoxicating liquors without paying
customs duties, smuggling such merchandise, and facilitating concealment and transportation
thereof. U.S. v. Merrell, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1934, 73 F.2d 49, certiorari denied 55 S.Ct. 346, 293
U.S. 627, 79 L.Ed. 713. Constitutional Law
24
So far as former § 497 of Title 19 was affected by the National Prohibition Act, former § 1 et
seq. of Title 27, its effect as to importation of liquor was restored to former § 3 of Title 27.
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 11
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
Callahan v. U.S., C.C.A.3 (Del.) 1931, 53 F.2d 467, certiorari granted 52 S.Ct. 208, 284 U.S.
614, 76 L.Ed. 524, affirmed 52 S.Ct. 454, 285 U.S. 515, 76 L.Ed. 914.
Charge of trafficking in unlawfully imported liquor, drawn under Tariff Act was not sustainable
under National Prohibition Act, former § 1 et seq. of Title 27. Hartson v. U.S., C.C.A.2 (N.Y.)
1926, 14 F.2d 561. Indictment And Information
59
That R.S. § 2802 [now § 1497 of Title 19] imposed penalty for bringing in dutiable articles in
baggage did not indicate that the offense was not within R.S. § 3082 [now this section],
imposing a greater penalty. U.S. v. Chesbrough, D.C.N.J.1910, 176 F. 778.
A violation of R.S. § 2802 [now § 1497 of Title 19] imposing a penalty where there was found,
in the baggage of a person arriving within the United States, any dutiable article not mentioned
to the Collector at the time of making entry for the baggage, was the misdemeanor denounced in
R.S. § 3082 [now this section] when done fraudulently or knowingly. U.S. v. Chesbrough,
D.C.N.J.1910, 176 F. 778. Customs Duties
125; Penalties
3
Under Blockburger test for determining identity of "offenses" for double jeopardy purposes,
offenses charged in German arrest warrant for habeas petitioner arising out of bank robbery,
including theft and grand larceny, were not the same "offenses" as related offenses for which
petitioner was tried in United States, including transporting stolen currency in foreign commerce,
receipt and possession of stolen currency, and smuggling stolen currency into United States, in
that each offense required proof of additional fact that others did not; therefore, petitioner's
extradition did not violate prior jeopardy provision of extradition treaty between United States
and Germany. Elcock v. U.S., E.D.N.Y.2000, 80 F.Supp.2d 70. Extradition And Detainers
5
4. Purpose
The design of R.S. § 3082 [now this section] was to punish as a crime that which before had
subjected its perpetrator to civil liability, or quasi civil liability. Stockwell v. U.S., U.S.Me.1871,
80 U.S. 531, 20 L.Ed. 491, 13 Wall. 531.
Purpose of this section proscribing smuggling or clandestinely introducing merchandise into
United States which should have been invoiced, and knowingly importing or bringing into
United States merchandise contrary to law, without complying with other provisions of law, is to
prevent the surreptitious, clandestine or fraudulent entry of goods into the United States. U. S. v.
Claybourn, S.D.Cal.1960, 180 F.Supp. 448. Customs Duties
125
R.S. § 3082 [now this section] was intended only to embrace the case of property brought into
the country clandestinely, with the fraudulent purpose of evading the import duty, and not to
apply where it was entered at a custom house and the forms of law observed, but in respect to
which a fraud was subsequently ascertained and it embraced only acts of smuggling in the usual
and accepted meaning of the word. U.S. v. Fifty-Three Boxes of Havana Sugar, S.D.Ohio 1870,
25 F.Cas. 1081, 2 Bond 346, No. 15098.
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 12
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
5. Law governing
Within statute proscribing fraudulently or knowingly importing or bringing into the United States
any merchandise contrary to law, "law" includes regulations having the force and effect of law,
even though regulations were fairly uncommon when it was enacted in 1866, in light of
reenactments after it was well settled that word "law" includes substantive regulations having
force and effect of law. U.S. v. Mitchell, C.A.4 (Va.) 1994, 39 F.3d 465, certiorari denied 115
S.Ct. 2578, 515 U.S. 1142, 132 L.Ed.2d 828. Customs Duties
22
If there is any conflict between this section, designating offense as a felony, and Surgeon
General's regulation, forbidding importation of psittacine birds, the violation of which is a
misdemeanor, with respect to importation of such birds, this section prevails. Duke v. U.S.,
C.A.9 (Cal.) 1958, 255 F.2d 721, certiorari denied 78 S.Ct. 1361, 357 U.S. 920, 2 L.Ed.2d 1365.
Criminal Law
27
6. Power of Congress
Congress could and did order both civil and criminal sanctions for importation of undeclared
goods. One Lot Emerald Cut Stones and One Ring v. U. S., U.S.Fla.1972, 93 S.Ct. 489, 409
U.S. 232, 34 L.Ed.2d 438. Customs Duties
121; Customs Duties
130(8)
7. Administrative regulations
Felony conviction for importing merchandise contrary to law could be predicated on violations
of administrative regulations having force and effect of law even though Congress had
specifically provided misdemeanor penalties for the violations of those regulations; the
subsequently promulgated regulations did not repeal by implication the applicability of the
felony statute to defendant's actions. U.S. v. Mitchell, C.A.4 (Va.) 1994, 39 F.3d 465, certiorari
denied 115 S.Ct. 2578, 515 U.S. 1142, 132 L.Ed.2d 828. Customs Duties
125
8. Merchandise within section--Generally
"Merchandise," as used in the statute imposing criminal penalties for importing merchandise
contrary to law, includes marijuana. U.S. v. Garcia-Paz, C.A.9 (Cal.) 2002, 282 F.3d 1212.
Customs Duties
125
This section proscribing smuggling into the United States merchandise which should have been
invoiced proscribes all smuggling, be it for personal or commercial use. U. S. v. Hall, C.A.9
(Wash.) 1977, 559 F.2d 1160, certiorari denied 98 S.Ct. 1523, 435 U.S. 942, 55 L.Ed.2d 539.
Customs Duties
121
The term "merchandise" is not limited to general merchandise, as distinguished from baggage.
U.S. v. Chesbrough, D.C.N.J.1910, 176 F. 778.
Former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] comprehended any merchandise imported contrary
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 13
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
to law, and was not limited to merchandise sent or received for sale. Von Cotzhausen v. Nazro,
C.C.E.D.Wis.1879, 15 F. 891, 11 Biss. 44, affirmed 2 S.Ct. 503, 107 U.S. 215, 17 Otto 215, 27
L.Ed. 540.
Copyrights were proper basis for prosecution for smuggling "goods" into United States. U.S. v.
Gallo, W.D.N.Y.1984, 599 F.Supp. 241, 226 U.S.P.Q. 148. Customs Duties
120.1
9. ---- Alcoholic beverages, merchandise within section
Intoxicating liquor was "merchandise", within former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section]
though imported for beverage purposes. Harford v. U.S., U.S.S.C.1814, 8 Cranch 109, 12 U.S.
109, 3 L.Ed. 504. See, also, Harford v. U.S., S.C.1814, 12 U.S. 109, 8 Cranch 109, 3 L.Ed. 504;
Callahan v. U.S., C.C.A.Del.1931, 53 F.2d 467, affirmed 52 S.Ct. 454, 285 U.S. 515, 76 L.Ed.
914; Bookbinder v. U.S. v. Benegochea, C.C.A.Fla.1922, 279 F. 537; U.S. v. Santini,
C.C.A.Fla.1922, 279 F. 534; Goldberg v. U.S., C.C.A.Minn.1921, 277 F. 211; U.S. v. Hanna,
C.C.A.Wash.1921, 276 F. 817, certiorari denied 42 S.Ct. 315, 258 U.S. 622, 96 L.Ed. 796; The
Goodhope, D.C.Wash.1920, 268 F. 694; U.S. v. One Ford Automobile, C.C.A.N.Y.1919, 262 F.
374.
Unlawfully imported liquor was "merchandise". Dickerson v. U.S., C.C.A.8 (N.D.) 1927, 20
F.2d 901.
Whisky brought across Canadian border in automobile was "merchandise" within meaning of
former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section]. Kurczak v. U. S., C.C.A.6 (Mich.) 1926, 14 F.2d
109. Customs Duties
125
Under Acts Oct. 3, 1917, c. 63, § 301, 40 Stat. 308; Nov. 21, 1918, c. 212, § 4, 40 Stat. 1047;
and Feb. 24, 1919, c. 18, § 601, 40 Stat. 1106, it was determined that whisky might be lawfully
imported, and was therefore a "commodity of merchandise", embraced within the commercial
regulations, and its smuggling was punishable. U.S. v. Powers, W.D.Wash.1920, 263 F. 724.
Customs Duties
121
10. ---- Narcotics, merchandise within section
The word "merchandise", as used in former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] did not include
the bringing in of opium which was dealt with by former § 173 of Title 21. Palmero v. U. S.,
C.C.A.1 (Mass.) 1940, 112 F.2d 922.
11. ---- Obscene materials, merchandise within section
Obscene photographs were still "merchandise" within statute which proscribes knowingly
importing or bringing into the United States any merchandise contrary to law, even if defendant
did not intend to use them for commercial purposes. U.S. v. Meyer, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1986, 802 F.2d
348, certiorari denied 108 S.Ct. 71, 484 U.S. 817, 98 L.Ed.2d 35. Customs Duties
22
12. ---- Psittacine birds, merchandise within section
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 14
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
Psittacine birds are such "merchandise" as to require invoicing under the customs laws. Duke v.
U.S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1958, 255 F.2d 721, certiorari denied 78 S.Ct. 1361, 357 U.S. 920, 2 L.Ed.2d
1365. Customs Duties
125
Defendants who were charged with conspiracy to smuggle psittacine birds into United States and
with receiving, concealing and transporting such birds were properly indicted under this section
relating to smuggling notwithstanding existence of § 271(a) of Title 42 carrying lesser penalty
for violation of quarantine laws which specifically prohibited importation of psittacine birds.
Murray v. U.S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1957, 250 F.2d 489, certiorari denied 78 S.Ct. 1375, 357 U.S. 932,
2 L.Ed.2d 1373. Customs Duties
125
Psittacine birds are "merchandise" within this section making it an offense to knowingly, and
with intent to defraud, introduce into the United States any merchandise contrary to law. Steiner
v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1956, 229 F.2d 745, certiorari denied 76 S.Ct. 845, 351 U.S. 953, 100
L.Ed. 1476, rehearing denied 77 S.Ct. 24, 352 U.S. 860, 1 L.Ed.2d 70, certiorari denied 76 S.Ct.
847, 351 U.S. 953, 100 L.Ed. 1476. Customs Duties
125
13. ---- Stolen merchandise, merchandise within section
Former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] was applicable to the receipt of a coil of rope stolen
and brought ashore by a sailor from a vessel from a foreign port. Goldman v. U.S., C.C.A.5
(La.) 1920, 263 F. 340. See, also, Keck v. U.S., Pa.1899, 19 S.Ct. 254, 172 U.S. 434, 43 L.Ed.
505; Estes v. U.S., N.M.1915, 227 F. 818, 142 C.C.A. 342; One Pearl Chain v. U.S., N.Y.1903,
123 F. 371, 59 C.C.A. 499; U.S. v. AChain Cable, C.C.Mass.1836, 25 Fed.Cas. 391, No.
14,776; The Gertrude, C.C.Me.1844, 10 Fed.Cas. 265, 5,370.
14. Persons subject to penalty
Mere fact that actual importation of parrots into the United States was made by government
informer who was cooperating with customs officials and who had been employed by defendant
did not absolve defendant of criminal responsibility for smuggling on theory that the
government, and not defendant, transported the parrots across the border without making the
requisite declaration. U. S. v. Phye, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1971, 437 F.2d 364. Customs Duties
125
This section providing for punishment of one fraudulently or knowingly importing or bringing
into United States any merchandise contrary to law cannot be interpreted to apply to commercial
importers rather than, or to exclusion of, casual and noncommercial importers. Current v. U. S.,
C.A.9 (Cal.) 1961, 287 F.2d 268. Customs Duties
125
Indians, though residing on reservation adjoining international boundary, were subject to general
laws of United States prohibiting smuggling. Bailey v. U.S., C.C.A.9 (Ariz.) 1931, 47 F.2d 702.
Indians
38(1)
Liquor-laden British vessel, arrested within territorial waters, not satisfactorily proving claim of
distress, was subject to penalty for unlawful importation. The J. Duffy, C.C.A.2 (Conn.) 1927,
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 15
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
18 F.2d 754, certiorari denied 48 S.Ct. 21, 275 U.S. 528, 72 L.Ed. 408. Customs Duties
133(6)
One bring whisky into country, which was found in his automobile by customs officer, as soon
as he landed from international ferry, was not guilty of concealing and transporting whisky
unlawfully imported. Kurczak v. U. S., C.C.A.6 (Mich.) 1926, 14 F.2d 109. Customs Duties
125
Where an agent, contrary to the orders of his principal, conceals and fails to declare merchandise
brought by him into this country, the principal is bound by the acts of the agent, and the
merchandise is subject to forfeiture. U.S. v. One Strand Pearl Necklace, S.D.N.Y.1919, 260 F.
671.
One who goes abroad with funds furnished by another, and buys goods to be smuggled home,
and causes them to be delivered to the carrier, who actually smuggles them, is guilty, though the
service be gratuitous. U.S. v. Martin, D.C.Me.1868, 26 F.Cas. 1179, No. 15729. Customs
Duties
123
15. Territorial application of section
Statutory prohibition on attempted smuggling could be applied extraterritorially, to United States
citizens engaged in conduct outside of United States, in view of nature of offense and problem at
which statute was directed, as acts constituting attempt to smuggle were not logically dependent
on their locality, and extraterritorial application was not inconsistent with international law. U.S.
v. Plummer, C.A.11 (Fla.) 2000, 221 F.3d 1298. Customs Duties
120.1
Defendant, who was a citizen of the United States, could be punished in the United States for
conspiring to smuggle amphetamine tablets into the United States notwithstanding that the acts
leading to such crime may have been committed in Mexico. Brulay v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1967,
383 F.2d 345, certiorari denied 88 S.Ct. 469, 389 U.S. 986, 19 L.Ed.2d 478. Criminal Law
97(.5)
Since smuggling by its very nature involves foreign countries, and since the accomplishment of
the crime always requires some action in a foreign country, Congress intended that provisions of
this section against smuggling and § 371 of this title should extend to acts in foreign countries at
least as to citizens of the United States. Brulay v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1967, 383 F.2d 345,
certiorari denied 88 S.Ct. 469, 389 U.S. 986, 19 L.Ed.2d 478. Criminal Law
97(.5)
Former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] impliedly limited to acts accomplished within the
territory of the United States, and no statute embracing its subject matter having extended
jurisdiction to a point on the seas 19 miles from the coast, an act there committed by foreign
nationals on ships of foreign registry was not an offense against the United States. The Over the
Top, D.C.Conn.1925, 5 F.2d 838.
There was no smuggling in violation of former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] by a vessel
or those on board where 19 miles from shore they sold and delivered liquor to a government
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 16
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
agent who then paid therefor, so that title passed. The Over the Top, D.C.Conn.1925, 5 F.2d
838.
16. Liability of officer making seizure
Dutiable goods imported in the foreign mail are in the hands of the receiver of them from the
post office, liable to seizure by the officers of customs; and the fact that there was no intent on
the part of the sender or receiver to defraud the United States of the duty does not render the
officer liable to an action for making the seizure. Von Cotzhausen v. Nazro, U.S.Wis.1883, 2
S.Ct. 503, 107 U.S. 215, 17 Otto 215, 27 L.Ed. 540.
United States Customs agents who executed search warrant for gold pieces which were later
adjudged not to be declarable items were protected by qualified immunity defense against
plaintiffs' constitutional tort damage action for alleged violation of rights under U.S.C.A. Const.
Amend. 4. Since reasonable grounds existed for action taken based on suspicious circumstances
and conduct of plaintiffs and agents acted in good faith based on imprimatur of neutral,
independent judicial officer in issuing search warrant. Benson v. Hightower, C.A.9 (Wash.)
1980, 633 F.2d 869, certiorari denied 102 S.Ct. 102, 454 U.S. 820, 70 L.Ed.2d 91. Customs
Duties
54
II. OFFENSES
<Subdivision Index>
Generally 41
Aiding and abetting 48
Attempts 49
Completion of offense 51
Conspiracy 50
Dutiable nature of merchandise, smuggling or clandestine introduction 43
Failure to declare or report merchandise, smuggling or clandestine
introduction 44
Importation contrary to law 46
Intent 52
Knowledge 53
Merchandise which should have been invoiced, smuggling or clandestine
introduction 45
Receiving, concealing, etc., contraband 47
Smuggling or clandestine introduction 42-45
Smuggling or clandestine introduction - Generally 42
Smuggling or clandestine introduction - Dutiable nature of merchandise 43
Smuggling or clandestine introduction - Failure to declare or report merchandise
44
Smuggling or clandestine introduction - Merchandise which should have been
invoiced 45
41. Generally, offenses
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 17
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
Smuggling or clandestinely introducing goods, or passing through a customs house any false,
forged or fraudulent invoice, is unlawful and evil per se, while importing, bringing in, or
receiving goods after importation is not evil per se, but is a crime of smuggling or clandestinely
introducing goods because of failure to comply with other statutes. U. S. v. Claybourn,
S.D.Cal.1960, 180 F.Supp. 448. Customs Duties
125
42. Smuggling or clandestine introduction, offenses--Generally
By the established definition of the word "smuggling", both in English and American law, to
constitute the offense the goods must be unladen and brought on shore. Keck v. U S,
U.S.Pa.1899, 19 S.Ct. 254, 172 U.S. 434, 43 L.Ed. 505.
One is guilty of smuggling when he or she employs any method of introducing goods into
country surreptitiously with intent to avoid and defeat United States customs laws. U. S. v.
Mehrmanesh, C.A.9 (Ariz.) 1982, 689 F.2d 822. Customs Duties
120.1
"Clandestinely introduces", within this section prohibiting smuggling or clandestinely
introducing merchandise which should have been invoiced, refers to any method of introducing
goods surreptitiously by concealment or fraud; evidence that defendant carried foreign
merchandise in sealed cartons without listing them on customs invoice, telling customs agent that
he had declared everything and, after discovery of some merchandise, lying as to its origin, was
sufficient to sustain burden of showing clandestine introduction. U. S. v. Kurfess, C.A.7 (Ill.)
1970, 426 F.2d 1017, certiorari denied 91 S.Ct. 60, 400 U.S. 830, 27 L.Ed.2d 60. Customs
Duties
121; Customs Duties
134
Where accused charged with knowingly and willfully smuggling and clandestinely introducing
merchandise into United States to defraud United States had a fellow seaman ask a customs
agent if undeclared merchandise could be landed from ship and upon receiving a negative
answer, accused's friend said accused would take goods to Manila, and accused had signed back
on ship as a crew member, and goods were seized aboard ship, accused did not "smuggle" goods
into United States within meaning of this section. Wong Bing Nung v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1955,
221 F.2d 917. Customs Duties
125
Clandestine introduction of goods into United States, importation of which is prohibited without
payment of duty, constitutes "smuggling". Tomplain v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (La.) 1930, 42 F.2d 203,
certiorari denied 51 S.Ct. 89, 282 U.S. 886, 75 L.Ed. 781. Customs Duties
125
Smuggling intoxicating liquors, or knowingly facilitating their transportation after their
importation, constituted a criminal offense, under former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section].
Bailey v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (Ga.) 1925, 5 F.2d 437, certiorari dismissed 46 S.Ct. 12, 269 U.S. 551,
269 U.S. 589, 70 L.Ed. 427.
The provision of R.S. § 2865 [now this section] making it criminal to "smuggle or clandestinely
introduce" merchandise into the United States, did not include a case where merchandise was
fraudulently entered at the custom house. U.S. v. 646 Half-Boxes of Figs, E.D.N.Y.1908, 164 F.
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 18
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
778. Customs Duties
125
The offense of smuggling is not committed by an act done before the obligation to pay or
account for the duties arises. American Sugar Refining Co. v. Bidwell, C.C.S.D.N.Y.1903, 124
F. 677.
Very nature of smuggling charge implies that defendant have some sort of possession of goods
for conviction to lie. U. S. v. Brodzik, W.D.N.Y.1973, 366 F.Supp. 295. Customs Duties
121
The word "smuggle" and the phrase "clandestinely introduce", mean substantially the same
thing, and refer to acts of a defendant in surreptitiously and by concealment or fraud avoiding
customs and introducing goods into the United States. U. S. v. Claybourn, S.D.Cal.1960, 180
F.Supp. 448. Customs Duties
125
Where goods are in the United States, taking them out of the United States and bringing them in
again is not an act intended to be prohibited by this section proscribing the smuggling or
clandestinely introducing of merchandise, which should have been invoiced, into the United
States. U. S. v. Claybourn, S.D.Cal.1960, 180 F.Supp. 448. Customs Duties
125
Where a defendant carried merchandise in his automobile across the international border from
the United States to Mexico, and then returned with the same merchandise in his automobile, and
did nothing with the merchandise in Mexico, he did not commit the crime of knowingly and
willfully smuggling and clandestinely introducing into the United States the merchandise in
question. U. S. v. Claybourn, S.D.Cal.1960, 180 F.Supp. 448. Customs Duties
125
To constitute the offense of smuggling, there must be something in the manner of the importation
which violates the statute, such as secrecy or concealment, intent to defraud the revenue, or the
like. U.S. v. Thomas, D.C.N.Y.1870, 28 F.Cas. 76, No. 16473.
Smuggling is the actual passage of dutiable goods through the lines of the customs house without
paying or securing the payment of the duties thereon. 1903, 24 Op.Atty.Gen. 583.
43. ---- Dutiable nature of merchandise, smuggling or clandestine introduction, offenses
Showing that items introduced clandestinely in country were subject to duty was not necessary to
prove violation of this section prohibiting smuggling or clandestine introduction of merchandise
which should have been invoiced. U. S. v. Kurfess, C.A.7 (Ill.) 1970, 426 F.2d 1017, certiorari
denied 91 S.Ct. 60, 400 U.S. 830, 27 L.Ed.2d 60. Customs Duties
134
It is not necessary to obtain conviction under this section that item or items introduced
clandestinely into United States be subject to duty. U.S. v. McKee, C.A.2 (Vt.) 1955, 220 F.2d
266. Customs Duties
125
Under former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section], failure of the importer to produce a consular
invoice or other evidence required by statute as to the character or value of the merchandise or to
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 19
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
declare the same was sufficient to establish a fraudulent importation, regardless of whether or not
the merchandise was in fact dutiable. U.S. v. Twenty-Five Pictures, S.D.N.Y.1919, 260 F. 851.
Customs Duties
130(4.1)
44. ---- Failure to declare or report merchandise, smuggling or clandestine introduction,
offenses
One falsely telling Collector at custom house that he had no diamonds to declare was guilty of
smuggling notwithstanding later admission. U.S. v. Ritterman, U.S.Vt.1927, 47 S.Ct. 371, 273
U.S. 261, 71 L.Ed. 636. Customs Duties
123
Failure to report merchandise brought into country is just as criminal as failure to pay the
customs fees. U.S. v. McKee, C.A.2 (Vt.) 1955, 220 F.2d 266. Customs Duties
125
Accused, who denied having anything to declare before declaration was required at port of entry,
but on being searched while entry was being made admitted that his bag contained diamonds was
not guilty of smuggling. Ritterman v. U.S., C.C.A.2 (Vt.) 1926, 12 F.2d 849, certiorari granted
47 S.Ct. 240, 273 U.S. 685, 71 L.Ed. 839, reversed 47 S.Ct. 371, 273 U.S. 261, 71 L.Ed. 636.
Customs Duties
123
45. ---- Merchandise which should have been invoiced, smuggling or clandestine introduction,
offenses
Word "invoiced" as used in this section proscribing smuggling of merchandise into United States
means lawfully entered or declared. U. S. v. Boggus, C.A.9 (Ariz.) 1969, 411 F.2d 110,
certiorari denied 90 S.Ct. 245, 396 U.S. 919, 24 L.Ed.2d 198. Customs Duties
121
Phrase "which should have been invoiced" as used in this section was intended to make clear
what type of merchandise was placed under ban of this section. U. S. v. Boggus, C.A.9 (Ariz.)
1969, 411 F.2d 110, certiorari denied 90 S.Ct. 245, 396 U.S. 919, 24 L.Ed.2d 198. Customs
Duties
121
The provision in former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] prohibiting the smuggling or
clandestine introduction into the United States of "merchandise which should have been
invoiced", related only to unlawful importation; words quoted not being mere surplusage. U.S.
v. Craig, W.D.N.Y.1924, 1 F.2d 480.
46. Importation contrary to law, offenses
Importation of intoxicating liquors without permit and without payment of customs duties
constituted violation of former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] and criminal offense
thereunder. General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. U.S., U.S.Cal.1932, 52 S.Ct. 468, 286
U.S. 49, 76 L.Ed. 971, answer to certified question conformed to 58 F.2d 1082. Customs Duties
124
The phrase "contrary to law" related to legal provisions not found in former § 1593 of Title 19
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 20
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
[now this section]. Keck v. U S, U.S.Pa.1899, 19 S.Ct. 254, 172 U.S. 434, 43 L.Ed. 505. See,
also, Bookbinder v. U.S., C.C.A.Pa.1923, 287 F. 790, certiorari denied 43 S.Ct. 523, 262 U.S.
748, 67 L.Ed. 1213; Rogers v. U.S. Mich.1910, 180 F. 54, 103 C.C.A. 408, 31 L.R.A., N.S.,
264; U.S. v. Chesbrough, D.C.N.J.1910, 176 F. 778; One Pearl Chain v. U.S., N.Y.1903, 123 F.
371, 59 C.C.A. 499.
Customs Service regulation requiring individuals to declare every item brought into the United
States, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) regulation requiring persons importing wildlife into the
United States generally to complete, sign and file certain form, and Department of Agriculture
regulation prohibiting individual from importing hides and horns into the United States unless
country of origin disclosure requirements are met are regulations having force and effect of law,
and thus were encompassed by the "contrary to law" provision of statute proscribing importing
any merchandise contrary to law. U.S. v. Mitchell, C.A.4 (Va.) 1994, 39 F.3d 465, certiorari
denied 115 S.Ct. 2578, 515 U.S. 1142, 132 L.Ed.2d 828. Customs Duties
65
Prohibited printed matter arriving by mail from abroad, which had to be examined at the border
and detained, had not yet been "imported" or "brought into the United States" within former §
1593 of Title 19 [now this section]. U.S. v. Nicholas, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1938, 97 F.2d 510.
Customs Duties
130(3)
Words "contrary to law", meant contrary to any existing law, including National Prohibition Act,
former § 1 et seq. of Title 27. Callahan v. U.S., C.C.A.3 (Del.) 1931, 53 F.2d 467, certiorari
granted 52 S.Ct. 208, 284 U.S. 614, 76 L.Ed. 524, affirmed 52 S.Ct. 454, 285 U.S. 515, 76 L.Ed.
914. Customs Duties
125
"Importation" takes place whenever merchandise is brought within territorial waters of United
States with intent illegally to bring merchandise into country. Callahan v. U.S., C.C.A.3 (Del.)
1931, 53 F.2d 467, certiorari granted 52 S.Ct. 208, 284 U.S. 614, 76 L.Ed. 524, affirmed 52 S.Ct.
454, 285 U.S. 515, 76 L.Ed. 914. Customs Duties
125
Word "importation" used in customs laws must be taken in ordinary sense, and means bringing
article into country from outside; entry through custom house not being necessary. Tomplain v.
U.S., C.C.A.5 (La.) 1930, 42 F.2d 203, certiorari denied 51 S.Ct. 89, 282 U.S. 886, 75 L.Ed. 781.
Customs Duties
125
Goods had to have passed a customs barrier in order to be imported or brought into the United
States within former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section]. The J Duffy, D.C.Conn.1926, 14 F.2d
426, reversed on other grounds 18 F.2d 754, certiorari denied 48 S.Ct. 21, 275 U.S. 528, 72
L.Ed. 408.
R.S. § 3082 [now this section] was general in its terms and was not limited to cases of dutiable
merchandise imported in violation of the customs laws, or to importations in violation of some
law existing at the time of its enactment or its latest amendment; but the words "contrary to law"
were to be given their natural and obvious meaning, and said section applied to an importation in
violation of any law in effect at the time of the alleged offense. Goldberg v. U.S., C.C.A.8
(Minn.) 1921, 277 F. 211.
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 21
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
"Contrary to law" meant in violation of any regulations relating to the introduction of goods
established by law other than former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] itself, and made
punishable when disobeyed. Goldman v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (La.) 1920, 263 F. 340.
Where an indictment charged that defendant fraudulently and knowingly imported into the
United States, contrary to law, goods subject to customs duty, importing them clandestinely,
secretly, and without an entry being made at the customs house as required by law, and without
the payment of duty thereon, with intent to defraud the United States of its lawful revenue, the
indictment was predicated on R.S. § 3082 [now this section], but it also charged the offense
denounced by R.S. § 2865 [now this section]. Sierra v. U.S., C.C.A.1 (Puerto Rico) 1916, 233
F. 37, 147 C.C.A. 107.
Cattle brought into the United States without complying with R.S. § 3100 [now § 1461 of Title
19] as to inspection by customs officer, though not dutiable, was imported contrary to law. Estes
v. U S, C.C.A.8 (N.M.) 1915, 227 F. 818, 142 C.C.A. 342. Customs Duties
125
The term "import or bring" included the whole act of bringing dutiable articles into the United
States. U.S. v. Chesbrough, D.C.N.J.1910, 176 F. 778.
Violation of R.S. § 2802 [now § 1497 of Title 19] relating to importation of dutiable articles in
baggage, was determined to be "contrary to law" within former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this
section]. U.S. v. Chesbrough, D.C.N.J.1910, 176 F. 778.
The offense of bringing merchandise into the United States "contrary to law" does not include
frauds or illegalities concerning the invoicing of the same, or the payment of duties thereon,
which can only occur after the importation is accomplished and the merchandise brought within
the cognizance of the customs officers. U.S. v. Kee Ho, D.Or.1887, 33 F. 333, 13 Sawy. 143.
47. Receiving, concealing, etc., contraband, offenses
"Contrary to law" as used in this section proscribing knowingly receiving any merchandise
imported or brought into United States contrary to law means contrary to any existing law.
Olais-Castro v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1969, 416 F.2d 1155. Customs Duties
121
Where there was no evidence that marihuana had been imported into the United States and that
defendant knew that it had been imported, conviction of concealing marihuana knowing it to
have been imported into the United States contrary to law, was erroneous. Symons v. U.S.,
C.A.9 (Cal.) 1949, 178 F.2d 615. Controlled Substances
39
To commit offense of facilitating concealment and transportation of smuggled merchandise, it is
not always necessary to first pass port of entry without reporting and declaring goods. U.S. v.
Merrell, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1934, 73 F.2d 49, certiorari denied 55 S.Ct. 346, 293 U.S. 627, 79 L.Ed.
713. Customs Duties
123
For offense of receiving, transporting, or concealing merchandise, knowing it had been
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 22
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
unlawfully imported, it need not be merchandise which should have been invoiced. Hernandez
v. U.S., C.C.A.1 (Puerto Rico) 1926, 15 F.2d 190. Customs Duties
125
Facilitating transportation of smuggled whisky was an offense under Act Sept. 21, 1922, c. 356,
§ 593, 42 Stat. 982 [now this section]. Gillespie v. U.S., C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1926, 13 F.2d 736,
certiorari denied 47 S.Ct. 240, 273 U.S. 730, 71 L.Ed. 863. Customs Duties
134
Indictment alleging facilitating transportation of smuggled whisky charged an offense under Act
Sept. 21, 1922, c. 356, § 593(b), 42 Stat. 982 [now this section] and not under Act Sept. 21,
1922, c. 356, § 593(a), 42 Stat. 982 [now this section]. Gillespie v. U.S., C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1926,
13 F.2d 736, certiorari denied 47 S.Ct. 240, 273 U.S. 730, 71 L.Ed. 863. Customs Duties
134
"Possession" of liquor, made an offense under some circumstances by National Prohibition Act,
former § 1 et seq. of Title 27 was not the same thing as "receiving" or "concealing" it, which,
when done knowing it to have been imported contrary to law is an offense. Bookbinder v. U S,
C.C.A.3 (Pa.) 1923, 287 F. 790, certiorari denied 43 S.Ct. 523, 262 U.S. 748, 67 L.Ed. 1213.
The offense of receiving and concealing goods imported contrary to law, denounced by former §
1593 of Title 19 [now this section] was not confined to goods imported contrary to the customs
laws, but included liquors imported contrary to the National Prohibition Act, former § 1 et seq.
of Title 27, unless superseded by that Act. U S v. Bookbinder, E.D.Pa.1922, 281 F. 207.
Customs Duties
125
The transportation of whisky imported from a foreign country without a permit was sufficient to
sustain a charge of violating former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section]. U.S. v. One Buick
Roadster, D.C.Mont.1922, 280 F. 517.
Rope stolen by sailors from a ship landed without permit, and delivered to defendant for sale, is
"merchandise" in his hands, so that he may be convicted of receiving merchandise imported
contrary to law. Goldman v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (La.) 1920, 263 F. 340. Customs Duties
121
Where a person is selling goods in his possession which he concedes to have been smuggled, he
is guilty of keeping or storing goods with knowledge that they were landed without license.
Walsh v. U S, C.C.Mass.1847, 29 F.Cas. 107, 3 Woodb. & M. 341, No. 17116. Customs Duties
125
A resistance of the seizure of goods, whereby the same are removed from the custody of the
officer, is not a concealment. U S v. Farnsworth, C.C.Mass.1815, 25 F.Cas. 1048, 1 Mason 1,
No. 15072.
48. Aiding and abetting, offenses
One may be convicted of aiding, abetting and inciting commission of offense, though not in
district when offense is committed. Callahan v. U.S., C.C.A.3 (Del.) 1931, 53 F.2d 467,
certiorari granted 52 S.Ct. 208, 284 U.S. 614, 76 L.Ed. 524, affirmed 52 S.Ct. 454, 285 U.S. 515,
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 23
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
76 L.Ed. 914. Criminal Law
113
Person aiding and abetting unlawful importation of liquor and concealment thereof after
importation was guilty as "principal". Krench v. U. S., C.C.A.6 (Mich.) 1930, 42 F.2d 354.
Customs Duties
125
Officers and crew of foreign vessel discharging cargo of liquor into other vessels to be
transported in violation of Act Sept. 21, 1922, c. 356, § 593, 42 Stat. 982 [now this section] were
aiders and abetters. U.S. v. Ford, D.C.Cal.1925, 3 F.2d 643. Criminal Law
97(3);
Criminal Law
394.1(1); Intoxicating Liquors
167
49. Attempts, offenses
Former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] did not include mere attempts to clandestinely
introduce goods and under it the offense was not complete until the obligation to pay or account
for the duty has arisen; hence the concealment of merchandise on board an incoming vessel,
though with the intent and for the purpose of clandestinely introducing the same into the United
States without the payment of the duty thereon, and although continued until after the vessel had
entered the waters of a port of the United States, did not constitute the offense. Keck v. U S,
U.S.Pa.1899, 19 S.Ct. 254, 172 U.S. 434, 43 L.Ed. 505.
50. Conspiracy, offenses
Conspiracy to smuggle merchandise into the United States is established if evidence establishes
the commission of any of the overt acts specified in the indictment. U. S. v. Montgomery, C.A.9
(Cal.) 1971, 440 F.2d 694, certiorari denied 92 S.Ct. 221, 404 U.S. 884, 30 L.Ed.2d 166.
Conspiracy
47(3.1)
Actual proof of conspiracy within United States was unnecessary in prosecution for conspiracy
to import barge load of liquor from Canada, where proof showed barge was brought to Buffalo
and discharged there pursuant to agreement. U.S. v. Downing, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1931, 51 F.2d
1030. Criminal Law
97(3)
Though a continuing conspiracy to smuggle intoxicating liquors and facilitate their transportation
was formed prior to the enactment of former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section], overt acts
committed after its enactment were sufficient to keep it alive. Bailey v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (Ga.)
1925, 5 F.2d 437, certiorari dismissed 46 S.Ct. 12, 269 U.S. 551, 269 U.S. 589, 70 L.Ed. 427.
Though former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] provided for the punishment of persons
aiding and abetting smuggling, and though if an offense necessarily involved an unlawful
agreement between two or more persons the parties thereto could not be charged with conspiracy
for making such agreement, but had to be prosecuted for the principal offense, the parties to a
conspiracy to smuggle foreign merchandise and defraud the United States of customs duties
could be indicted for conspiracy, as neither smuggling nor defrauding the United States
necessarily involved an agreement between two or more persons, and either offense could be
committed by a single individual. U S v. Shevlin, D.C.Mass.1913, 212 F. 343.
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 24
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
51. Completion of offense, offenses
Defendants could not be convicted of smuggling where merchandise had not been landed on
shore when their vessel was intercepted and they were arrested by customs officers. U. S. v.
Lespier, C.A.1 (Puerto Rico) 1979, 601 F.2d 22. Customs Duties
120.1
Indian reservation, within limits of which smuggled cattle were kept, is part of "United States",
and therefore smuggling was complete when cattle were brought onto reservation without
payment of duty for Mexico. Bailey v. U.S., C.C.A.9 (Ariz.) 1931, 47 F.2d 702. Customs
Duties
125
Mere bringing of intoxicating liquor within three-mile limit did not complete offense of
"smuggling". McGill v. U.S., C.C.A.9 (Wash.) 1928, 28 F.2d 572. Customs Duties
125
Act Sept. 21, 1922, c. 356, § 593, 42 Stat. 982, did not apply until goods had passed a customs
barrier. The J Duffy, D.C.Conn.1926, 14 F.2d 426, reversed on other grounds 18 F.2d 754,
certiorari denied 48 S.Ct. 21, 275 U.S. 528, 72 L.Ed. 408. Customs Duties
125
The offense is established when goods are proved to have been brought into country contrary to
law, although never unladen. Gillespie v. U.S., C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1926, 13 F.2d 736, certiorari
denied 47 S.Ct. 240, 273 U.S. 730, 71 L.Ed. 863. Customs Duties
134
The offense of smuggling is complete as to prohibited articles, when, though not unloaded, they
have been brought into the territorial waters of the United States. U.S. v. Thirty-Six Cases of
Intoxicating Liquor, etc., S.D.Tex.1922, 281 F. 243. Customs Duties
125
Where, after a steamship passenger's baggage declaration had been given to the customs
inspector, he replied, in answer to questioning, that he had declared everything, and was searched
and diamonds found concealed on his person, the act of smuggling was fully executed; it not
being necessary to the completion of the crime that he should have left the customs inclosure.
Newman v. U.S., C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1921, 276 F. 798, certiorari denied 42 S.Ct. 317, 258 U.S. 623,
66 L.Ed. 796. Customs Duties
125
The offense is complete where it appears that the defendant, after making out his baggage
declaration, stated to customs inspectors that he had declared everything, but upon being
searched was found to have smuggled goods in his possession. Newman v. U.S., C.C.A.2 (N.Y.)
1921, 276 F. 798, certiorari denied 42 S.Ct. 317, 258 U.S. 623, 66 L.Ed. 796.
A person becomes guilty of smuggling by avoiding the first opportunity given to make a customs
declaration and pay the duty. Rogers v. U. S., C.C.A.6 (Mich.) 1910, 180 F. 54, 103 C.C.A. 264,
103 C.C.A. 408.
Act of smuggling goods contained in a passenger's pocket and omitted from his declaration on
shipboard was complete when he left the vessel, though he was still within the custom lines on
the dock. U.S. v. 218 1/2 Carats Loose Emeralds, S.D.N.Y.1907, 153 F. 643, affirmed 154 F.
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 25
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
839, 83 C.C.A. 475.
52. Intent, offenses
"Intent to defraud" element of smuggling goods into the United States statute as means intent to
avoid and defeat the United States customs laws, rather than the narrower construction intent to
deprive the United States of revenue. U.S. v. Robinson, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1998, 147 F.3d 851,
certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 1249, 526 U.S. 1016, 143 L.Ed.2d 346. Customs Duties
121
Intent to cause deprivation of property or money is required by statute that criminalizes passing
false, forged, or fraudulent invoice through customhouse with intent to defraud United States.
U.S. v. Menon, C.A.3 (N.J.) 1994, 24 F.3d 550, rehearing and rehearing in banc denied.
Customs Duties
122
Where defendant was charged with knowingly importing merchandise into United States without
presenting and declaring merchandise to customs agents, there was no requirement that
prosecution establish that defendant had intent to defraud the government. U. S. v. Davis, C.A.9
(Ariz.) 1979, 597 F.2d 1237. Customs Duties
122
Phrase "intent to defraud the United States" as used in this section means intent to avoid and
defeat United States customs laws. U. S. v. Boggus, C.A.9 (Ariz.) 1969, 411 F.2d 110, certiorari
denied 90 S.Ct. 245, 396 U.S. 919, 24 L.Ed.2d 198. Customs Duties
122
Intent to return vehicle to Canada was not exculpatory of alleged crime of smuggling
snowmobile into United States from Canada. U.S. v. McKee, C.A.2 (Vt.) 1955, 220 F.2d 266.
Customs Duties
125
Under former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] relating to smuggling and clandestine
importations of merchandise, gravamen of offense of facilitating the illegal transportation of
lottery tickets was bad motive in facilitating the illegal transportation of lottery tickets was bad
motive in facilitating the transportation of such tickets coupled with knowledge of prior unlawful
importation. U.S. v. Mueller, C.A.5 (Tex.) 1949, 178 F.2d 593. Customs Duties
125
Under former § 1593(a) of Title 19 [now this section] intent to deprive the government of
revenue was an ingredient of the crime. U.S. v. Kushner, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1943, 135 F.2d 668,
certiorari denied 63 S.Ct. 1449, 320 U.S. 212, 87 L.Ed. 1850, rehearing denied 64 S.Ct. 32, 320
U.S. 808, 88 L.Ed. 488. Customs Duties
122
An intent to deprive the government of revenue was not an ingredient of former § 1593(b) of
Title 19 [now this section] and former § 483(b) [now 1595a(b) ] of Title 19, making it an
offense to assist in unlawful importation of merchandise. U.S. v. Kushner, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1943,
135 F.2d 668, certiorari denied 63 S.Ct. 1449, 320 U.S. 212, 87 L.Ed. 1850, rehearing denied 64
S.Ct. 32, 320 U.S. 808, 88 L.Ed. 488. Customs Duties
122
If a defendant had intent to fraudulently and knowingly import and bring into the United States
certain goods in question, his failure to comply with customs laws would constitute a violation of
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 26
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
this section proscribing such conduct, even though the merchandise in question was originally in
the United States, an was then brought across the international border, and then returned without
anything having been done to it while over the border. U. S. v. Claybourn, S.D.Cal.1960, 180
F.Supp. 448. Customs Duties
125
An actual intention to defraud is an essential question in a suit to enforce a forfeiture. Lewey v.
U.S., C.C.N.Y.1878, 15 F.Cas. 449, No. 8309. Customs Duties
130(6)
To support an indictment under former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section], there had to be
sufficient evidence of a criminal intent. 1900, 23 Op.Atty.Gen. 63.
53. Knowledge, offenses
In action for forfeiture of painting, issue of material fact existed on question whether owner was
involved in or aware of smuggling of his painting into United States and did all that reasonably
could be expected of him to avoid smuggling painting, precluding summary judgment. U.S. v.
One Tintoretto Painting Entitled The Holy Family With Saint Catherine and Honored Donor,
C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1982, 691 F.2d 603. Federal Civil Procedure
2515
Jury was entitled to conclude in prosecution for possession and importation of counterfeit federal
reserve notes that concealed possession of 37 counterfeit bills by two people traveling together
was not simply an innocent coincidence and could also consider, as probative of knowledge, that
female defendant's bills were carried separately in her brassiere and that male defendant had a
total of 29 counterfeit bills in his possession. U. S. v. Asbury, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1978, 586 F.2d 973.
Counterfeiting
18
Conviction of receiving, etc., marihuana and amphetamine tablets smuggled into the United
States from Mexico was unsupported, where the evidence was insufficient to establish the
essential element of defendant's scienter. U. S. v. Caldwell, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1972, 466 F.2d 611.
Controlled Substances
86
Offender must act with knowledge before violation of this section prohibiting fraudulently or
knowingly importing into United States any merchandise contrary to law has been committed.
Roseman v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1966, 364 F.2d 18, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 879, 386 U.S. 918,
17 L.Ed.2d 789, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 880, 386 U.S. 918, 17 L.Ed.2d 789. Customs Duties
125
Failure to make entry for imported cattle as required by law was clear violation of law within
meaning of this section imposing a penalty upon anyone who fraudulently and knowingly
imports or brings into United States any merchandise "contrary to law". Babb v. U.S., C.A.5
(Tex.) 1958, 252 F.2d 702, certiorari denied 78 S.Ct. 1137, 356 U.S. 974, 2 L.Ed.2d 1147.
Customs Duties
125
It is sufficient if the act is done either "fraudulently" or "knowingly". Wishart v. U.S., C.C.A.8
(N.D.) 1928, 29 F.2d 103.
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 27
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
The lack of knowledge which will excuse must be of fact. Wishart v. U.S., C.C.A.8 (N.D.) 1928,
29 F.2d 103.
It was only when the act was done fraudulently or knowingly that the crime specified in former §
1593 of Title 19 [now this section] was committed. U.S. v. Chesbrough, D.C.N.J.1910, 176 F.
778.
The receipt or concealment of smuggled goods is not an offense, unless they are known to be
smuggled. U.S. v. Sauer, W.D.Tex.1896, 73 F. 671.
III. PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT
<Subdivision Index>
Adherence to statutory language, indictment 91
Arrest 81
Automobiles, searches and seizures 83
Bill of particulars 107
Citation of statute, indictment 92
Comments of counsel 118
Comments of court 117
Conduct of jurors 115
Declaration as precluding prosecution 109
Description of merchandise, indictment 93
Disclosure of informant's identity 113
Discovery and inspection 112
Dismissal, indictment 94
Double jeopardy 110
Duplicity, indictment 95
Election of counts, indictment 96
Grand jury proceedings 89
Harmless or prejudicial error 125
Indictment 90-106
Indictment - Generally 90
Indictment - Adherence to statutory language 91
Indictment - Citation of statute 92
Indictment - Description of merchandise 93
Indictment - Dismissal 94
Indictment - Duplicity 95
Indictment - Election of counts 96
Indictment - Intent 97
Indictment - Joinder of offenses 98
Indictment - Knowledge 99
Indictment - Notice of forfeiture 100
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 28
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
Indictment - Particular indictments insufficient 106
Indictment - Particular indictments sufficient 105
Indictment - Particularity and certainty 101
Indictment - Statement of illegality 102
Indictment - Surplusage 103
Indictment - Variances 104
Instructions 121
Intent, indictment 97
Joinder of offenses, indictment 98
Jurisdiction 88
Knowledge, indictment 99
Luggage, searches and seizures 84
Mail or freight, searches and seizures 85
New trial 124
Notice of forfeiture, indictment 100
Particular indictments insufficient 106
Particular indictments sufficient 105
Particularity and certainty, indictment 101
Persons entitled to object, searches and seizures 86
Questions for court 119
Questions for jury 120
Record 126
Review 127
Searches and seizures 82-87
Searches and seizures - Generally 82
Searches and seizures - Automobiles 83
Searches and seizures - Luggage 84
Searches and seizures - Mail or freight 85
Searches and seizures - Persons entitled to object 86
Searches and seizures - Vessels 87
Selection of jury 114
Self-incrimination 111
Sentence 123
Severance 108
Statement of illegality, indictment 102
Surplusage, indictment 103
Variances, indictment 104
Verdict 122
Vessels, searches and seizures 87
Withdrawal of juror 116
81. Arrest, prosecution and punishment
Where information given customs agents by informer respecting description of defendants and
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 29
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
location of contraband in automobile was corroborated by external circumstances, officers could
reasonably conclude that informer was reliable and that defendants had committed smuggling
and assault upon customs agent at port of entry, and arrest of defendants was based on probable
cause. U. S. v. De La Cruz Bellinger, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1970, 422 F.2d 723, certiorari denied 90 S.Ct.
1860, 398 U.S. 942, 26 L.Ed.2d 278. Arrest
63.4(9)
Probable cause to arrest defendant without a warrant by customs agents in what was not a border
search existed if facts and circumstances within knowledge, which agents had, and of which
agents had reasonably trustworthy information prior to arrest, were sufficient in themselves to
warrant a man of reasonable caution in believing that an offense had been or was being
committed by such a person. U. S. v. Cleaver, C.A.9 (Ariz.) 1968, 402 F.2d 148, certiorari
denied 89 S.Ct. 1312, 394 U.S. 966, 22 L.Ed.2d 568. Arrest
63.4(2)
Officers finding that goods smuggled in under false documents were consigned to defendant, and
that defendant filed "in transit" permit, were justified in making arrest. U.S. v. Poller, C.C.A.2
(N.Y.) 1930, 43 F.2d 911. Arrest
63(4)
No common law principles were available to vest customs agents with power to arrest without
warrant for facilitating smuggling of contraband jade into United States and knowingly receiving
same. U. S. v. Hou Wan Lee, S.D.N.Y.1967, 264 F.Supp. 804. Arrest
63.1
Where customs enforcement officers observed hiring agent and longshoreman leaving deserter
pier in early morning and carrying a carton, which he placed in his parked automobile, and
officers had reason to suspect that he was unlawfully removing liquor from pier and taking it
away in his automobile, and, though search of automobile did not turn up any liquor, he admitted
to officers that he had at his house six or eight bottles of liquor, which came from ship's stores,
and which he had acquired from crew members, officers had probable cause to believe that he
had committed a crime by acquiring liquor in violation of customs regulations, and they were
justified in arresting him. Bolger v. U. S., S.D.N.Y.1960, 189 F.Supp. 237, affirmed 293 F.2d
368, certiorari granted 82 S.Ct. 602, 368 U.S. 984, 7 L.Ed.2d 522, reversed on other grounds 83
S.Ct. 385, 371 U.S. 392, 9 L.Ed.2d 390. Arrest
63.4(13)
Where customs enforcement officers had reason to suspect that hiring agent and longshoreman
was unlawfully removing liquor from pier and was taking it away in his automobile, and, though
search of his automobile did not turn up any liquor, he admitted that he had at his house six or
eight bottles of liquor, which had come from ship's stores, and which he had acquired from crew
members illegally, so that officers had probable cause to believe that he had committed a crime
and would have been justified in arresting him, and officers admitted that they detained him and
that if he had attempted to leave, they would have forcibly detained him, there was an "arrest" no
matter what the officers chose to call it. Bolger v. U. S., S.D.N.Y.1960, 189 F.Supp. 237,
affirmed 293 F.2d 368, certiorari granted 82 S.Ct. 602, 368 U.S. 984, 7 L.Ed.2d 522, reversed on
other grounds 83 S.Ct. 385, 371 U.S. 392, 9 L.Ed.2d 390. Arrest
68(3)
82. Searches and seizures, prosecution and punishment--Generally
Computer report, which showed that occupants of automobile bearing license plates affixed to
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 30
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
defendant's companion's vehicle were suspected of having smuggled contraband into the United
States, but which was based on information supplied by a narcotics officer who had relied on an
unremembered informant of, perhaps, uncertain reliability, did not give customs official adequate
legal justification to conduct a body search. U. S. v. Williams, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1972, 459 F.2d 44.
Customs Duties
126(10)
Miranda warnings were not required before defendant's statement to customs agents pursuant to
routine border search, before his bags were opened and noninvoiced merchandise found. U. S. v.
Kurfess, C.A.7 (Ill.) 1970, 426 F.2d 1017, certiorari denied 91 S.Ct. 60, 400 U.S. 830, 27
L.Ed.2d 60. Criminal Law
412.2(2)
Entry into defendant's motel room by customs agent, who pretended to be representative of
prospective Miami buyers of gold, and who gave testimony about what he then saw and heard at
trial of defendant charged with smuggling gold into United States from Mexico, was not an
unlawful entry in violation of U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 4. U. S. v. Boggus, C.A.9 (Ariz.) 1969,
411 F.2d 110, certiorari denied 90 S.Ct. 245, 396 U.S. 919, 24 L.Ed.2d 198. Customs Duties
126(3.1)
Employment of scintillator in public hallways outside apartment of defendant charged with
receiving and concealing smuggled watches and of conspiracy did not violate defendant's rights
against illegal searches and seizures. Corngold v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1966, 367 F.2d 1.
Telecommunications
1436
In prosecution for smuggling and conspiracy relating to alleged plot to blow up Statute of
Liberty, government properly seized from home of one defendant, pursuant to search warrants,
articles including planks of wood, long spike nails, bottles, cotton wadding, a funnel and two
plastic containers of gasoline and benzine. U. S. v. Bowe, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1966, 360 F.2d 1,
certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 401, 385 U.S. 961, 17 L.Ed.2d 306, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 779, 385
U.S. 1042, 17 L.Ed.2d 686, rehearing denied 87 S.Ct. 1040, 386 U.S. 969, 18 L.Ed.2d 127.
Searches And Seizures
148
Person cannot be lawfully subjected to search which is illegal because not based on probable
cause at its inception, on theory that finding of contraband justifies means employed. Carr v.
U.S., C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1932, 59 F.2d 991. Searches And Seizures
82
Remark by accused after seizure that he did not run because he knew officers would pick him up
sooner or later did not constitute probable cause for search for smuggled liquor. U.S. v. Kaplan,
C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1931, 47 F.2d 587. Customs Duties
126
Affiant's belief that defendant possessed smuggled "merchandise" was insufficient for federal
search either as to probable cause or description. U.S. v. Clark, D.C.Mont.1927, 18 F.2d 442.
Searches And Seizures
114
83. ---- Automobiles, searches and seizures, prosecution and punishment
Defendant's attempt to flee border area in his vehicle when accosted by customs agents who had
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 31
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
observed persons placing objects inside trunk and who observed defendant enter on foot from
Mexico and look inside trunk of his automobile and who knew that defendant was associated
with organizations promoting legalization of anticancer drug provided agents sufficient exigent
circumstances for immediate warrantless search for contraband. U. S. v. Westover, C.A.9 (Cal.)
1975, 511 F.2d 1154, certiorari denied 95 S.Ct. 2633, 422 U.S. 1009, 45 L.Ed.2d 673. Customs
Duties
126(4)
Where sedan in which codefendant was arrested was never seen to cross border, search of sedan
without warrant was improper as a "border search". U. S. v. Garcia, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1969, 415 F.2d
1141. Customs Duties
126(1)
Where station wagon driven by defendant was stopped two hours after it crossed border from
Mexico into United States and 20 miles away and it was never under surveillance for any part of
that time and distance, its search without a warrant was not a valid "border search". U. S. v.
Garcia, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1969, 415 F.2d 1141. Customs Duties
126(5)
Where search of defendant and other occupants of motor vehicle and vehicle at 12-mile post was
not a border search, and customs agents had neither arrest warrant nor search warrant at time of
arrest and search, search was lawful only if customs agents had probable cause to arrest
defendant at time and place and only if search and seizure were incident to that arrest. U. S. v.
Cleaver, C.A.9 (Ariz.) 1968, 402 F.2d 148, certiorari denied 89 S.Ct. 1312, 394 U.S. 966, 22
L.Ed.2d 568. Arrest
71.1(2.1)
Where reliable informer in Mexico reported that three men wearing described clothing had been
trying to purchase marijuana in Mexico and that they had jumped international fence with a bag
of marijuana, and customs agent saw men wearing described clothing near border, and they went
to motor vehicle and drove away, and, when men reached 12-mile post, agents, who had no
warrants, stopped motor vehicle and arrested the three occupants, including defendant, and
searched the motor vehicle and found marijuana and benzedrine tablets, warrantless arrest and
search were proper. U. S. v. Cleaver, C.A.9 (Ariz.) 1968, 402 F.2d 148, certiorari denied 89
S.Ct. 1312, 394 U.S. 966, 22 L.Ed.2d 568. Arrest
63.4(8); Arrest
71.1(5)
Mere possibility that search will prove fruitful does not justify stopping and searching of
automobiles indiscriminately on highway except at international boundaries. Carr v. U.S.,
C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1932, 59 F.2d 991. Searches And Seizures
60.1
Probable cause to search automobile was not shown where officers, who had never seen
accused's car before they passed it on the road, testified they saw accused drive car into certain
farm yard, and at distance of 300 yards saw accused take sacks from car into farmhouse, and that
subsequent search disclosed that sacks contained intoxicating liquors smuggled from Canada.
U.S. v. Kaplan, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1931, 47 F.2d 587.
Search without warrant of heavily loaded automobiles with curtains drawn, followed into
country place surrounded by solid metal fence, was justified. Curtis v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (Ga.) 1930,
38 F.2d 450, certiorari denied 50 S.Ct. 467, 281 U.S. 768, 74 L.Ed. 1175. Customs Duties
126(2)
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 32
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
Defendant, who complied with request of customs officials that he open trunk of automobile, did
not thereby acquiesce in search just because he made no specific objection to the authority thus
raised. U. S. v. Duffy, S.D.N.Y.1965, 250 F.Supp. 900. Customs Duties
126(1)
84. ---- Luggage, searches and seizures, prosecution and punishment
Second search by customs agents was not constitutionally impermissible where defendant had
not been cleared by first customs agent when other agents arrived to continue search but was still
loading luggage on cart and had not passed into public area; further investigation was continuing
valid border search. U. S. v. Kurfess, C.A.7 (Ill.) 1970, 426 F.2d 1017, certiorari denied 91 S.Ct.
60, 400 U.S. 830, 27 L.Ed.2d 60. Customs Duties
126(9.1)
Where airline employees held passenger's suitcases at airport after plane departed with
passenger, unlocked suitcases and found watch movements, and reported to customs service,
customs officers did not make a "search" within constitutional meaning of the term when they
subsequently examined contents of the suitcases, and they properly took possession of the
suitcases, and after passenger claimed possession thereof and started to make off with them,
arrested him for committing crime of receiving unlawfully imported watch movements in their
presence and seized the watch movements from his person. Wolf Low v. U. S., C.A.9 (Nev.)
1968, 391 F.2d 61, certiorari denied 89 S.Ct. 136, 393 U.S. 849, 21 L.Ed.2d 119. Arrest
63.3; Customs Duties
126(7)
Where defendant was arrested under circumstances justifying reasonable belief by officers that
defendant was facilitating transportation and concealment of illegally imported gold bullion,
search of defendant's traveling bag and seizure of bullion and other items contained therein was
justified as an incident to a lawful arrest. U S v. Stein, W.D.N.Y.1943, 53 F.Supp. 911. Customs
Duties
126(3.1)
85. ---- Mail or freight, searches and seizures, prosecution and punishment
Affidavit of customs agent that he had been informed by law enforcement officers that addresses
on package were those of known dealers in illegal traffic of gold coins, return address on
package was an unoccupied house, the person who mailed the package in Washington was
driving an automobile with Canadian license plates, defendant, when he mailed package, told
postal clerk that package contained coins and defendant insured package for $10,000 was
sufficient to support issuance of warrant for search of first class mail package. U. S. v. Van
Leeuwen, C.A.9 (Wash.) 1970, 427 F.2d 1174. Customs Duties
126(8)
First-class mail is protected by U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 4. U. S. v. Van Leeuwen, C.A.9 (Wash.)
1969, 414 F.2d 758, certiorari granted 90 S.Ct. 175, 396 U.S. 885, 24 L.Ed.2d 160, reversed on
other grounds 90 S.Ct. 1029, 397 U.S. 249, 25 L.Ed.2d 282, on remand 427 F.2d 1174. Postal
Service
47
Search of package belonging to defendant charged with receiving and concealing smuggled
watches and of conspiracy, which he delivered to airport, was not proper for reason that it was
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 33
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
consented to by airline since privilege against unreasonable search and seizure was a personal
one belonging to defendant, which only he could waive by word or deed either directly or
through an agent. Corngold v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1966, 367 F.2d 1. Searches And Seizures
173.1
Consent of airline to which package was delivered to a search of package by customs agents
could not bind defendant charged with receiving and concealing smuggled watches and of
conspiracy where defendant's package, securely wrapped and tied, was delivered to airline solely
for transportation from Los Angeles to New York, and inspection clause in airline's tariff
authorized examination only by carrier itself. Corngold v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1966, 367 F.2d 1.
Searches And Seizures
173.1
Search of packages delivered to airport by defendant charged with receiving and concealing
smuggled watches and conspiracy was not justified even if customs agents had probable cause to
believe the packages contained contraband, where officers had no warrant, no arrest was made to
which a search without a warrant might be incident, and there was nothing to prevent agents
from securing a warrant on a proper showing, either before packages were shipped from Los
Angeles or after they arrived in New York. Corngold v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1966, 367 F.2d 1.
Customs Duties
126(7)
Mere surrender of custody of a package to airline did not forfeit right of privacy of defendant
charged with receiving and concealing smuggled watches and of conspiracy, overruling Marshall
v. United States, 352 F.2d 1013. Corngold v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1966, 367 F.2d 1. Searches And
Seizures
72
Experienced mail entry aide, whose attention was initially drawn to package from Colombia, a
country from which, in his experience, many dutiable and contraband items are mailed to United
States, and who saw that the package contained no customs declaration and that its weight,
appearance and feel indicated that it probably contained merchandise subject to duty or
contraband, had reasonable cause to search parcel which contained cocaine. U. S. v. Arbelaez,
D.C.Conn.1974, 368 F.Supp. 605. Customs Duties
126(8)
Constitutional limits were not exceeded by opening mail of defendant charged with, inter alia,
facilitating the transportation and concealment of gold coins with knowledge that they had been
illegally imported, where, inter alia, first package lacked required label or endorsement, heft
indicated the presence of some sort of heavy metal, and spectroscopic examination revealed discshaped objects. U. S. v. Sohnen, E.D.N.Y.1969, 298 F.Supp. 51. Postal Service
47
86. ---- Persons entitled to object, searches and seizures, prosecution and punishment
Defendant, who mailed two packages within the United States as first-class mail, but who was
not the addressee or return addressee of packages containing gold coins, had standing in
prosecution for illegally importing gold coins, to object to seizure of the packages. U. S. v. Van
Leeuwen, C.A.9 (Wash.) 1969, 414 F.2d 758, certiorari granted 90 S.Ct. 175, 396 U.S. 885, 24
L.Ed.2d 160, reversed on other grounds 90 S.Ct. 1029, 397 U.S. 249, 25 L.Ed.2d 282, on remand
427 F.2d 1174. Postal Service
47
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 34
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
Defendant, who got out of automobile and started walking across border from Mexico to United
States, before automobile was stopped for search which disclosed marihuana and switchblade
knives, had no standing to complain about search of automobile. Craft v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.)
1968, 403 F.2d 360. Searches And Seizures
165
87. ---- Vessels, searches and seizures, prosecution and punishment
Officers of a revenue cutter have authority to seize and search a vessel within the territorial
waters of the United States, where there is probable cause to suspect her of smuggling or
attempting to smuggle goods into the United States, and such seizure and search may be made
outside of such waters, subject only to diplomatic considerations. The Rosalie M.,
D.C.Tex.1925, 4 F.2d 815, affirmed 12 F.2d 970. Customs Duties
126
Seizures and libels under treaty between Great Britain and the United States of May 22, 1924,
were determined to be authorized as against objection that Congress had not by law declared acts
denounced by former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] and other laws to be crimes when
committed beyond 3 and 12 mile limits. The Pictonian, D.C.N.Y.1924, 3 F.2d 145.
88. Jurisdiction, prosecution and punishment
That defendants charged with conspiracy to violate former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section]
were taken into Massachusetts District following arrest on high seas did not deprive Rhode
Island District Court of jurisdiction of crime, where indictment charged crime was committed in
latter District. Davidson v. U.S., C.C.A.1 (R.I.) 1933, 63 F.2d 90. Criminal Law
102;
Customs Duties
134
Doing overt act in District of Massachusetts in furtherance of alleged conspiracy was sufficient
to vest jurisdiction of crimes alleged in United States court for that District. U.S. v. Rotman,
D.C.R.I.1928, 23 F.2d 860. Conspiracy
27; Criminal Law
113
Issue whether liquor-laden vessel was seized within prescribed distance of coast was properly
raised by plea to court's jurisdiction. U.S. v. Schouweiler, S.D.Cal.1927, 19 F.2d 387. Criminal
Law
276
Court had no jurisdiction of prosecution for conspiracy to smuggle liquor into United States in
violation of former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section], where vessel was seized 66 miles from
American coast. U.S. v. Schouweiler, S.D.Cal.1927, 19 F.2d 387. Criminal Law
97(3)
Commander of interned German war vessel was subject to jurisdiction of United States courts for
offense of smuggling from vessel into United States dutiable articles. U S v. Thierichens,
E.D.Pa.1917, 243 F. 419. Aliens
17
Trial court had jurisdiction of accused under indictment charging that accused knowingly
received, concealed and facilitated transportation of certain birds, which accused knew had been
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 35
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
unlawfully imported into United States. U. S. v. Walker, S.D.Cal.1955, 132 F.Supp. 432.
Criminal Law
98
89. Grand jury proceedings, prosecution and punishment
District court did not abuse discretion in denying defendants charged with conspiracy and
smuggling an opportunity to present evidence at a hearing in support of their claims of
discrimination as to grand jury selection, where affidavit of their attorney contained conclusory
allegations of systematic exclusion based on alleged discussions with unnamed political persons
and information supplied by unnamed political figures. U. S. v. Bowe, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1966, 360
F.2d 1, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 401, 385 U.S. 961, 17 L.Ed.2d 306, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct.
779, 385 U.S. 1042, 17 L.Ed.2d 686, rehearing denied 87 S.Ct. 1040, 386 U.S. 969, 18 L.Ed.2d
127. Indictment And Information
140(1)
90. Indictment, prosecution and punishment--Generally
In prosecution for a conspiracy to illegally smuggle cattle into the United States and for
conspiring to receive, conceal and transport the cattle knowing them to have been illegally
imported, indictment was not required to allege any particular place at which the customs law
was first violated but it was enough that it was violated somewhere and that accused, with
knowledge of the facts, possessed and concealed the cattle. Babb v. U.S., C.A.5 (Tex.) 1954,
210 F.2d 473. Conspiracy
43(6)
In an indictment for conspiracy to receive and conceal whisky after its unlawful importation into
the United States, knowing the same to have been imported in violation of law, it is not
necessary to allege the facts relating to the importation of the whisky. Goldberg v. U.S., C.C.A.8
(Minn.) 1921, 277 F. 211. See, also, Weisman v. U.S., C.C.A.Minn.1921, 277 F. 221; Bank v.
U.S., C.C.A.Minn.1921, 277 F. 220. Conspiracy
43(6)
Where an indictment for conspiring to defraud the United States of customs duties and to commit
the crime of smuggling merchandise into the United States clearly described the general purpose
and scope of the conspiracy, it was not necessary to allege the exact manner or means by which
the merchandise was to be passed through the customs lines. U S v. Shevlin, D.C.Mass.1913,
212 F. 343.
91. ---- Adherence to statutory language, indictment, prosecution and punishment
Indictment charging violation of former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] in exact words of
that section and specifically describing merchandise "smuggled" in was sufficient. Hill v. U.S.,
C.C.A.4 (Md.) 1930, 42 F.2d 812, certiorari denied 51 S.Ct. 87, 282 U.S. 884, 75 L.Ed. 780.
Indictment And Information
110(10)
An indictment charging that defendant did "bring into the country clandestinely" certain dutiable
goods, was synonymous with the provision of R.S. § 2865 [now this section] making it an
offense to "clandestinely introduce" dutiable goods into the country with intent to avoid payment
of duty. Rogers v. U. S., C.C.A.6 (Mich.) 1910, 180 F. 54, 103 C.C.A. 264, 103 C.C.A. 408.
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 36
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
Customs Duties
134
92. ---- Citation of statute, indictment, prosecution and punishment
In order for indictment charging violation of this section forbidding knowingly importing or
receiving merchandise knowing the same to have been imported or brought into the United
States contrary to law to withstand challenge of sufficiency, indictment must allege which law
defendant's action was contrary to. Olais-Castro v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1969, 416 F.2d 1155.
Customs Duties
134
In prosecution for conspiracy and smuggling, court properly denied a motion to quash indictment
on grounds that it failed to specify by number the particular provisions of law to which it referred
where indictment clearly advised defendants of essential elements of offenses with which they
were charged, stated facts showing illegal aspects of importation of explosives, and no prejudice
was demonstrated by omission of specific citations. U. S. v. Bowe, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1966, 360 F.2d
1, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 401, 385 U.S. 961, 17 L.Ed.2d 306, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 779,
385 U.S. 1042, 17 L.Ed.2d 686, rehearing denied 87 S.Ct. 1040, 386 U.S. 969, 18 L.Ed.2d 127.
Indictment And Information
137(6)
Where indictments for illegal importation of marijuana and for smuggling amphetamine tablets
alleged violation of § 1461 of Title 19 setting forth procedures to be followed by casual and
noncommercial importer, there was no necessity for referring to § 1459 of Title 19 setting forth
procedures to be followed by commercial importer; and failure to charge violation of latter
section was no concern of defendant's, he being fortunate under circumstances not to be charged
with such additional violation. Current v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1961, 287 F.2d 268. Customs
Duties
134; Controlled Substances
64
Indictment charging that defendant at a certain time and place, with intent to defraud the United
States, knowingly and willfully smuggled and clandestinely introduced into the United States
certain described merchandise which had not been invoiced as required by law, and that
defendant knowingly concealed and facilitated the transportation and concealment of the
described jewelry or merchandise knowing that same to have been imported and brought into the
United States contrary to law and without having been invoiced as required by law, was
sufficient, notwithstanding fact that the indictment did not specify the particular law which
required that the articles be invoiced, and notwithstanding the fact that the words "contrary to
law" as used in the indictment were not coupled with an allegation of additional facts coupled
with an alleged violation of some specific law. Huff v. U.S., C.A.5 (Tex.) 1959, 273 F.2d 56.
Customs Duties
134
Where indictment charged defendants with knowingly, and with intent to defraud, introducing
certain birds into the United States contrary to law, but did not allege some fact or facts showing
that the birds in question were imported or brought in contrary to some law, the indictment was
fatally defective and could not be cured by a bill of particulars. Steiner v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.)
1956, 229 F.2d 745, certiorari denied 76 S.Ct. 845, 351 U.S. 953, 100 L.Ed. 1476, rehearing
denied 77 S.Ct. 24, 352 U.S. 860, 1 L.Ed.2d 70, certiorari denied 76 S.Ct. 847, 351 U.S. 953,
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 37
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
100 L.Ed. 1476. Indictment And Information
121.5
Where a count of an indictment charged defendants with conspiracy to commit an offense
against the United States by knowingly, and with intent to defraud, introducing certain birds into
the United States contrary to law, but did not charge or attempt to charge any substantive
offense, its failure to state what law other than the one setting forth a penalty for such
importations the mentioned importations were contrary to, or in what respects such importations
were contrary to such law, did not render the count fatally defective. Steiner v. U. S., C.A.9
(Cal.) 1956, 229 F.2d 745, certiorari denied 76 S.Ct. 845, 351 U.S. 953, 100 L.Ed. 1476,
rehearing denied 77 S.Ct. 24, 352 U.S. 860, 1 L.Ed.2d 70, certiorari denied 76 S.Ct. 847, 351
U.S. 953, 100 L.Ed. 1476. Conspiracy
43(6)
An indictment for conspiracy to receive and conceal whisky imported into the United States
contrary to law, knowing that it had been so imported, and alleging as overt acts that defendants
removed the whisky from the railroad cars in which it had been brought into the United States
for the purpose of concealing the same, was not insufficient because it did not allege the time of
such importation, where the importation of whisky was absolutely prohibited by a well-known
Act of Congress in force several months prior to the overt acts charged, nor because it described
the importation in the language of the statute as "contrary to law", without specifying the statute
violated. Goldberg v. U.S., C.C.A.8 (Minn.) 1921, 277 F. 211. Conspiracy
43(6)
93. ---- Description of merchandise, indictment, prosecution and punishment
An indictment charging the defendant with having smuggled and clandestinely introduced into
the United States certain diamonds of a stated value, which should have been invoiced, and duty
paid thereon, with intent to defraud the revenue, sufficiently described the smuggled goods,
though certain classes of diamonds were free of duty. Keck v. U S, U.S.Pa.1899, 19 S.Ct. 254,
172 U.S. 434, 43 L.Ed. 505.
Any words of description which made clear to the common understanding the articles in respect
to which the offense was alleged were sufficient, and an indictment sufficiently described the
article as "prepared opium subject to duty by law, to wit, the duty of $12 per pound", where the
only opium subject to a duty of $12 per pound was "opium containing less than 9 per cent. of
morphia and opium prepared for smoking", especially where no objection was made to the
indictment till after verdict, and in view of former § 556 of this title [now rules 6(d), 52(a),
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, this title]. Dunbar v. U.S., U.S.Or.1895, 15 S.Ct. 325, 156
U.S. 185, 39 L.Ed. 390.
While it might not be sufficient to use only the word "merchandise" in describing the property
charged to have been smuggled, because it is too general and does not sufficiently indicate the
property, "yet, any words of description which make clear to the common understanding the
articles in respect to which the offense is alleged are sufficient". Dunbar v. U.S., U.S.Or.1895,
15 S.Ct. 325, 156 U.S. 185, 39 L.Ed. 390.
Indictment charging smuggling into the United States merchandise which should have been
invoiced was not defective in stating that the merchandise was subject to forfeiture, when it had
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 38
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
already been forfeited. U. S. v. Hall, C.A.9 (Wash.) 1977, 559 F.2d 1160, certiorari denied 98
S.Ct. 1523, 435 U.S. 942, 55 L.Ed.2d 539. Customs Duties
134
Count, in indictment charging defendants with unlawfully conspiring to smuggle in merchandise,
was sufficient, where government specified merchandise in bill of particulars. Hill v. U.S.,
C.C.A.4 (Md.) 1930, 42 F.2d 812, certiorari denied 51 S.Ct. 87, 282 U.S. 884, 75 L.Ed. 780.
Indictment And Information
121.5
An indictment for smuggling, and for receiving, and facilitating the transportation, concealment,
and sale of, smuggled merchandise, was sufficient, where it described the merchandise as four
bottles of whisky. U.S. v. Powers, W.D.Wash.1920, 263 F. 724. Customs Duties
134
It is not necessary to describe smuggled merchandise in an indictment by the name under which
it is described in the tariff schedule. U.S. v. Powers, W.D.Wash.1920, 263 F. 724. Customs
Duties
134
An indictment that describes smuggled property in terms which presuppose the existence of
some law is not bad on that account as where it describes the goods "as subject to duty and which
should have been invoiced". U.S. v. White, C.C.S.D.N.Y.1909, 171 F. 775. Indictment And
Information
108
An indictment for smuggling "smoking opium" and "prepared opium" sufficiently described
dutiable merchandise. U.S. v. Gardner, C.C.N.D.N.Y.1890, 42 F. 832.
An indictment for smuggling, describing the goods as "six cases containing silk goods of the
value of $30,000, a more particular description of which is to the jurors unknown", being
dutiable goods introduced into the port of New York from France, was sufficient. U.S. v.
Claflin, C.C.N.Y.1875, 25 F.Cas. 433, No. 14798. Customs Duties
134
94. ---- Dismissal, indictment, prosecution and punishment
Indictment charging conspiracy extending from Feb. 9, 1930, to Aug. 9, 1931, to violate former
§ 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] was not demurrable since all acts alleged in furtherance of
crime charged occurred after effective date of that section. Davidson v. U.S., C.C.A.1 (R.I.)
1933, 63 F.2d 90. Conspiracy
43(6)
That charge of conspiring to violate former § 1593(b) of Title 19 [now this section] was made in
district into which defendants were taken after arrest on high seas, was dismissed, did not
preclude indictment of defendants in another district for conspiring to violate former § 1593(a)
of Title 19 [now this section]. Davidson v. U.S., C.C.A.1 (R.I.) 1933, 63 F.2d 90. Double
Jeopardy
88.1
95. ---- Duplicity, indictment, prosecution and punishment
Indictment for conspiracy at Bay of San Francisco to violate former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this
section] stated facts constituting offense within jurisdiction of court and was not duplicitous.
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 39
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
Ford v. U.S., U.S.Cal.1927, 47 S.Ct. 531, 273 U.S. 593, 71 L.Ed. 793. Conspiracy
Indictment And Information
86(2)
43(1);
Count of indictment charging both smuggling merchandise and illegal importation of
merchandise was duplicitous in that it charged separate offenses, but defect was waived by
defendants' failure to object by motion prior to trial. U. S. v. Westover, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1975, 511
F.2d 1154, certiorari denied 95 S.Ct. 2633, 422 U.S. 1009, 45 L.Ed.2d 673. Indictment And
Information
125(3); Indictment And Information
196(7)
Count of indictment charging conspiracy to import intoxicating liquor without permit and
without paying customs duties charged only one offense of conspiracy, and did not present
question such as charging two offenses in single count. Moyer v. U.S., C.C.A.9 (Cal.) 1935, 78
F.2d 624. Indictment And Information
125(5.5); Conspiracy
43(1)
Indictment for conspiracy to violate former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section], charging that
defendant as sheriff agreed to protect fellow conspirators from arrest by acting as lookout and to
refrain from arresting them in consideration for payments was not duplicitous. Clark v. U.S.,
C.C.A.5 (Ga.) 1932, 61 F.2d 409. Indictment And Information
125(5.5)
Count charging smuggling of specified quantity of liquor continuously to indictment was
demurrable as duplicitous and insufficient. Bailey v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (Ga.) 1931, 53 F.2d 982.
Indictment And Information
125(4.1)
Indictment charging receiving continuously over a period of more than a year 20,000 quarts of
intoxicating liquor with intent to defraud the United States of its customs revenue is bad for
duplicity. Sanchez v. U S, C.C.A.5 (Ga.) 1931, 52 F.2d 1086.
Count charging importation of liquor without paying customs duties, and count charging
concealment thereof, did not charge violations of both former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this
section] and former § 12 of Title 27 and it was therefore not duplicitous. Krench v. U. S.,
C.C.A.6 (Mich.) 1930, 42 F.2d 354. Indictment And Information
125(4.1)
Separate counts in indictment under former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] charging
importation and concealment did not charge same offense. Krench v. U. S., C.C.A.6 (Mich.)
1930, 42 F.2d 354. Indictment And Information
129(1)
Count charging defendants throughout period of conspiracy received and facilitated
transportation of liquor with knowledge of smuggling was duplicitous. Curtis v. U.S., C.C.A.5
(Ga.) 1930, 38 F.2d 450, certiorari denied 50 S.Ct. 467, 281 U.S. 768, 74 L.Ed. 1175.
Indictment And Information
125(5.5)
Count charging some defendants with smuggling and others with concealing and transporting
liquor was bad for misjoinder and duplicity. Curtis v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (Ga.) 1930, 38 F.2d 450,
certiorari denied 50 S.Ct. 467, 281 U.S. 768, 74 L.Ed. 1175. Indictment And Information
124(5); Indictment And Information
125(42)
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 40
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
Count in indictment for importing whisky without permit, without paying duty and in violation
of National Prohibition Act, former § 1 et seq. of Title 27, was not duplicitous. Kurczak v. U.
S., C.C.A.6 (Mich.) 1926, 14 F.2d 109. Indictment And Information
125(4.1)
Indictment charging defendant with bringing heroin into United States in violation of both
smuggling statute and statute prohibiting knowing and intentional importation of controlled
substance was not duplicitous, since each offense required proof of fact not required of other;
first statute required proof of "failure to declare" and second required proof of "controlled
substance." U.S. v. Jerome-Oboh, W.D.N.Y.1995, 883 F.Supp. 917. Indictment And
Information
42
Counts of indictment charging knowing payment of less than amount of duty legally due,
introducing imported merchandise by false invoice, and smuggling merchandise into United
States were not impermissibly "multiplicitous" in charging defendants under multiple statutory
provisions for each act; each statutory provision carries express penalty for violation and statutes
did not duplicate each other. U.S. v. Zhang, S.D.N.Y.1993, 833 F.Supp. 1010. Indictment And
Information
130
96. ---- Election of counts, indictment, prosecution and punishment
In prosecution for conspiracy to smuggle merchandise and smuggling merchandise, trial court
did not err in refusing to require government to elect between, or consolidate, the two counts of
conspiracy to smuggle merchandise, since the counts involved different merchandise for which
there were different factual circumstances, and since no prejudice resulted to defendant as a
result of trial court's ruling, because trial court made clear at the outset its intention not to allow
multiple sentences on the two counts. U. S. v. Wasserteil, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1981, 641 F.2d 704.
Criminal Law
620(1); Indictment And Information
132(3)
Government need not elect between prosecution for smuggling whisky and count charging illegal
transportation. West v. U S, C.C.A.8 (N.M.) 1926, 15 F.2d 916. Indictment And Information
132(5)
97. ---- Intent, indictment, prosecution and punishment
Averments as to "smuggling" were determined, after verdict, to charge offense as against
contention there was failure to charge intent to defraud revenue or to smuggle merchandise
which should have been invoiced. Musey v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (Tex.) 1930, 37 F.2d 673. Indictment
And Information
202(5)
Indictment for conspiracy was sufficient though not using statutory words "fraudulently or
knowingly". Wishart v. U.S., C.C.A.8 (N.D.) 1928, 29 F.2d 103.
An indictment for conspiracy to smuggle merchandise and defraud the United States of customs
duties need not allege that defendants intended that such merchandise should not be invoiced. U
S v. Shevlin, D.C.Mass.1913, 212 F. 343.
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 41
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
98. ---- Joinder of offenses, indictment, prosecution and punishment
Count charging conspiracy to smuggle, setting up filing of false affidavit as one of the overt acts,
and count charging perjury, based upon the filing of such false affidavit, can stand together in
one indictment. Murray v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1954, 217 F.2d 583. Indictment And Information
130
A count for illegally receiving, concealing, or buying may be joined with one for illegally
importing. Stockwell v. U.S., C.C.Me.1870, 23 F.Cas. 116, No. 13466, affirmed 80 U.S. 531, 20
L.Ed. 491, 13 Wall. 531. Customs Duties
129
99. ---- Knowledge, indictment, prosecution and punishment
An indictment under this section relating to smuggling and clandestine importations of
merchandise, alleging that defendants jointly and severally facilitated transportation of lottery
tickets knowing that they had been brought into the United States contrary to law was
insufficient, in absence of allegation that defendants knowingly and fraudulently facilitated the
transportation of such tickets. U.S. v. Mueller, C.A.5 (Tex.) 1949, 178 F.2d 593. Customs
Duties
134
Indictment charging accused "knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully" received "intoxicating
liquor * * * unlawfully imported" was defective for failure to charge knowledge of unlawful
importation. Crank v. U.S., C.C.A.9 (Cal.) 1932, 61 F.2d 620. Customs Duties
134
To charge offense of receiving, concealing, etc., liquor unlawfully imported contrary to former §
1593 of Title 19 [now this section], merchandise had to be alleged to have been unlawfully
imported and that to defendant's knowledge. Hartson v. U.S., C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1926, 14 F.2d 561.
Customs Duties
134
An allegation that defendants knowingly smuggled goods sufficiently alleged they knew the
goods were dutiable. U.S. v. White, C.C.S.D.N.Y.1909, 171 F. 775. Customs Duties
134
An indictment alleging that defendant smuggled into the United States merchandise subject to a
duty, which should have been invoiced, without paying or accounting for such duty, and without
having such merchandise invoiced, was sufficient without alleging that defendant knew that the
duty had not been paid. U.S. v. Dunbar, D.Or.1894, 60 F. 75, affirmed 15 S.Ct. 325, 156 U.S.
185, 39 L.Ed. 390.
100. ---- Notice of forfeiture, indictment, prosecution and punishment
Rule 7, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, this title, providing that when an offense charged
may result in a criminal forfeiture the indictment or information shall allege the extent of the
interest or property subject to forfeiture is mandatory and applies to criminal forfeiture penalty of
this section. U. S. v. Hall, C.A.9 (Wash.) 1975, 521 F.2d 406. Customs Duties
133(5)
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 42
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
Actions of district court, which found that indictment charging crime of smuggling was defective
because it did not allege that the subject merchandise was to be forfeited but which held that
government would be prohibited from invoking criminal forfeiture penalty and which allowed
defendant to "consent" to civil forfeiture of the merchandise in exchange for grant of probation,
deprived defendant of the mandatory notice of forfeiture to which he was entitled and the
concomitant opportunity to defend against it; such actions vitiated conviction; under
circumstances, defendant's consent could not be characterized as voluntary. U. S. v. Hall, C.A.9
(Wash.) 1975, 521 F.2d 406. Customs Duties
133(1)
101. ---- Particularity and certainty, indictment, prosecution and punishment
Indictment for unlawfully importing liquor was sufficiently certain. Dickerson v. U.S., C.C.A.8
(N.D.) 1927, 20 F.2d 901.
Counts of indictment charging that defendants, at certain times and places, conspired to smuggle
alcohol into the United States, were not objectionable, as being too general and not sufficiently
apprising accused of charge against them. U.S. v. Tello, D.C.Mass.1925, 6 F.2d 579.
An indictment for buying goods, which have been brought into the United States contrary to law
need not set out the offense committed in the original importation, with the same particularity of
time, place, and circumstances that would be required in an indictment for the original offense.
U.S. v. Claflin, C.C.N.Y.1875, 25 F.Cas. 433, No. 14798. Customs Duties
134
102. ---- Statement of illegality, indictment, prosecution and punishment
Indictment charging importation of liquor without permit from Commissioner of Internal
Revenue did not charge importation contrary to law, the power to grant permits having been
transferred to the Commissioner of Prohibition. U.S. v. Newton, D.C.Del.1929, 36 F.2d 425.
Customs Duties
134
It is necessary to state in the indictment in what the illegality of the importation or bringing into
the United States consists; and unless this is done no particular crime is charged, and the
indictment is demurrable. U.S. v. Kee Ho, D.Or.1887, 33 F. 333, 13 Sawy. 143.
It is not a sufficient description of the illegality of the original importation to say merely that the
goods were imported and brought into the United States contrary to law. U.S. v. Kee Ho,
D.Or.1887, 33 F. 333, 13 Sawy. 143.
If indictment charging that accused knowingly received, concealed and facilitated transportation
and concealment of certain birds knowing that they had been imported and brought into United
States contrary to this section, did not sufficiently inform accused of law violated when birds
were brought into United States, where at no time during trial did accused or his counsel mention
any defect in indictment, or point out in any way that accused was hampered in his defense by
lack of information in his indictment, accused had suffered no prejudice from form of
indictment, and judgment could not be vacated. U. S. v. Walker, S.D.Cal.1955, 132 F.Supp. 432.
Criminal Law
1478
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 43
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
An indictment must allege the facts relied upon as rendering the importation alleged an offense,
or state the particular illegality intended to be proved, and such allegation must be proved as
made. U.S. v. Thomas, D.C.N.Y.1870, 28 F.Cas. 76, No. 16473. Customs Duties
134
Averring the goods to have been smuggled and clandestinely introduced into the port of New
York from the republic of France, is giving such a statement as enables the court to say that the
original importation was illegal. U.S. v. Claflin, C.C.N.Y.1875, 25 F.Cas. 433, No. 14798.
Customs Duties
134
Where the illegality of the original importation is, in express terms, stated to consist in this: that
said goods have been "smuggled and clandestinely introduced into the United States", the charge
must be confined to the illegality thus described. U.S. v. Claflin, C.C.N.Y.1875, 25 F.Cas. 433,
No. 14798. Customs Duties
134
103. ---- Surplusage, indictment, prosecution and punishment
Under an indictment charging defendant with fraudulently and knowingly importing cigarettes,
etc., it was determined that allegations that the goods were imported on a certain date and by a
certain steamer were superfluous, and it was not necessary to prove them. Friedman v. U.S.,
C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1921, 276 F. 792. Indictment And Information
167
104. ---- Variances, indictment, prosecution and punishment
Variance between the indictment charging that defendant accused of conspiracy to smuggle
amphetamine tablets into United States caused transportation of approximately 1,958 pounds of
amphetamine tablets from garage to another location and the proof that defendant drove an
automobile whose trunk contained amphetamine tablets, was not fatal to conviction where there
was no motion for bill of particulars, there was no objection except in U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 4
grounds when evidence of the overt act found was admitted, and at no time did defendant claim
surprise and thus no substantial right of the defendant was affected. Brulay v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.)
1967, 383 F.2d 345, certiorari denied 88 S.Ct. 469, 389 U.S. 986, 19 L.Ed.2d 478. Conspiracy
43(12)
There was no fatal variance between indictments for illegal importation of marijuana and for
smuggling of amphetamine tablets and evidence adduced at trial. Current v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.)
1961, 287 F.2d 268. Customs Duties
134; Controlled Substances
67
Slight variation between indictment and proof in prosecution for conspiracy to smuggle was not
material, especially since neither surprise nor prejudice was claimed at time evidence was
introduced. U.S. v. McKee, C.A.2 (Vt.) 1955, 220 F.2d 266. Conspiracy
43(12)
105. ---- Particular indictments sufficient, prosecution and punishment
Counts of the indictment charging concealment and facilitation of the transport of illegally
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 44
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
imported goods were not invalid by reason of the exclusionary rule in section 5848 of Title 26 in
regard to information or evidence obtained from an application, registration, or records required
to be submitted or retained, since the government merely used importation form, which
defendant firearms dealer was required to complete, to demonstrate that guns were brought into
the United States fraudulently, which is contrary to law. U.S. v. Cox, C.A.11 (Ga.) 1983, 696
F.2d 1294, certiorari denied 104 S.Ct. 99, 464 U.S. 827, 78 L.Ed.2d 104. Fraud
69(2)
Indictments for illegal importation of marijuana and for smuggling of amphetamine tablets were
sufficient. Current v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1961, 287 F.2d 268. Customs Duties
134;
Controlled Substances
64
Indictment sufficiently charged conspiracy to violate former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this
section] by smuggling intoxicating liquor into United States with intent to defraud United States
of duty thereon. Goldberg v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (Ga.) 1932, 61 F.2d 414. Conspiracy
43(10)
Indictment charging that defendants conspired together to fraudulently and knowingly facilitate
transportation of beer known to have been imported into United States contrary to law, and that
in pursuance of conspiracy defendants parked automobile across road in front of beer truck,
came out armed, and tried to prevent search, was sufficient. Enrique Rivera v. U.S., C.C.A.1
(Puerto Rico) 1932, 57 F.2d 816. Conspiracy
43(6)
Count in indictment charging that defendants, with intent to defraud revenues of United States,
smuggled merchandise, to wit, whisky, gin, etc., was sufficient. Hill v. U.S., C.C.A.4 (Md.)
1930, 42 F.2d 812, certiorari denied 51 S.Ct. 87, 282 U.S. 884, 75 L.Ed. 780. Customs Duties
134
Indictment, in absence of demurrer, was sufficient to charge offense of unlawfully importing
liquor. Tomplain v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (La.) 1930, 42 F.2d 205. Customs Duties
134
Count charging continuing conspiracy to smuggle intoxicating liquor and facilitate transportation
thereof was good. Curtis v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (Ga.) 1930, 38 F.2d 450, certiorari denied 50 S.Ct.
467, 281 U.S. 768, 74 L.Ed. 1175. Indictment And Information
125(5.5)
Indictment for unlawfully importing merchandise, to wit, beer and ale, was sufficient. Mulane v.
U.S., C.C.A.8 (N.D.) 1927, 20 F.2d 903. Customs Duties
134
Count was determined to charge receipt, concealment, and transportation of liquors imported into
the United States without compliance with former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section]. Nounes
v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (Tex.) 1925, 4 F.2d 833, certiorari denied 45 S.Ct. 513, 268 U.S. 695, 69 L.Ed.
1162. Customs Duties
134
Indictment charging accused with feloniously receiving narcotics after importation, knowing that
they had been unlawfully imported, was sufficient, both as respects charge of illegal importation
and as to knowledge thereof. Wong Lung Sing v. U. S., C.C.A.9 (Cal.) 1925, 3 F.2d 780.
Indictment for concealing and facilitating transportation and concealment of cattle imported
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 45
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
without inspection, as required by regulations authorized by law, properly charged importation
contrary to law. Estes v. U S, C.C.A.8 (N.M.) 1915, 227 F. 818, 142 C.C.A. 342. Customs
Duties
134
An indictment, alleging that accused at Saulte Ste. Marie, did unlawfully, knowingly, and
fraudulently import and bring into the United States certain merchandise, to wit, 3 1/2 yards of
black woolen suiting cloth of the value of $10, contrary to law--that is, clandestinely and without
entering the same at the United States Customs Office and port of entry with the United States
Collector of Customs and paying the duty thereon--the same being foreign merchandise subject
to an import duty as provided in the law then in force, sufficiently charged "smuggling". Rogers
v. U. S., C.C.A.6 (Mich.) 1910, 180 F. 54, 103 C.C.A. 264, 103 C.C.A. 408. Customs Duties
134
106. ---- Particular indictments insufficient, prosecution and punishment
Where an indictment charged that on the date named the party "did knowingly, willfully, and
unlawfully import and bring into the United States, and did assist in importing and bringing into
the United States, to wit, into the port of Philadelphia", diamonds of a stated value, "contrary to
law and the provisions of the Act of Congress in such cases made and provided, with intent to
defraud the United States", it was determined that the count was clearly insufficient, the
allegations being obviously too general, and not sufficiently informing the defendant of the
nature of the accusation against him. Keck v. U S, U.S.Pa.1899, 19 S.Ct. 254, 172 U.S. 434, 43
L.Ed. 505.
Indictment charging defendant and two others with knowingly receiving, concealing,
transporting, and facilitating transportation of a number of Charolaise cattle, after importation,
knowing them to have been imported contrary to law, was fatally defective for failure to allege
some fact or facts showing that cattle in question were imported or brought in contrary to some
law, and could not be cured by bill of particulars. Babb v. U.S., C.A.5 (Tex.) 1955, 218 F.2d
538. Customs Duties
134; Indictment And Information
121.5
Count of indictment alleging liquor was brought into territorial waters of district of Delaware
was insufficient to charge failure to pay customs duties. U.S. v. Newton, D.C.Del.1929, 36 F.2d
425. Customs Duties
134
Charge of feloniously receiving, concealing, selling, and facilitating the receiving, etc., of liquor
unlawfully imported was insufficient. Hartson v. U.S., C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1926, 14 F.2d 561.
Customs Duties
134
107. Bill of particulars, prosecution and punishment
In prosecution for violating this section and § 483 of this title, by assisting in the importation of
undeclared gold bullion and for conspiring with others to violate such sections, denial of motion
for bill of particulars was not error, where motion unreasonably sought detailed information.
U.S. v. Kushner, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1943, 135 F.2d 668, certiorari denied 63 S.Ct. 1449, 320 U.S.
212, 87 L.Ed. 1850, rehearing denied 64 S.Ct. 32, 320 U.S. 808, 88 L.Ed. 488. Indictment And
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 46
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
Information
121.2(1)
Overruling defendant's motion for bill of particulars, requiring government to state port of
importation, was not error. Shore v. U.S., App.D.C.1932, 56 F.2d 490, 61 App.D.C. 18,
certiorari denied 52 S.Ct. 408, 285 U.S. 552, 76 L.Ed. 942. Indictment And Information
121.2(1)
Government's providing list of 30 "entry packets" of documents submitted to Customs in
connection with specific importations of goods underlying alleged false statement defendants
were charged with making and 24 more packets that government might introduce as further proof
of alleged violations satisfied government's obligation to respond to bill of particulars by
defendants as to identity of any document alleged to contain false statement and identity of any
false statement;
allegations in indictment specifying dollar amounts, actual price of
merchandise, and duties evaded, together with individual entry packets provided defendants with
more than sufficient notice of charges against them to prepare for trial. U.S. v. Zhang,
S.D.N.Y.1993, 833 F.Supp. 1010. Indictment And Information
121.4
Indictment charging defendant with knowingly and willfully smuggling and clandestinely
introducing diamonds into the United States was not sufficient to apprise defendant of precise
charge against him and government would be required to provide by bill of particulars
information as to whether defendant was charged with having introduced the diamonds
personally or having aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured or caused such
introduction and, if one of the latter acts, which one, and the means by which it was performed.
U.S. v. Lieberman, S.D.N.Y.1953, 15 F.R.D. 278. Indictment And Information
121.2(1)
In prosecution for smuggling and clandestinely introducing diamonds into the United States and
for having conspired to do so, government would not be required to provide information by bill
of particulars as to manner and means of alleged smuggling. U.S. v. Lieberman, S.D.N.Y.1953,
15 F.R.D. 278. Indictment And Information
121.2(3)
108. Severance, prosecution and punishment
Where defendants charged with assaulting customs agent with deadly and dangerous weapon and
smuggling amphetamine tablets into the United States raised defense of alibi, and defense of
codefendant was that evidence failed to show that he was aware of contraband in vehicle or
intended to smuggle contraband into the United States, defendants could not have benefited by
commenting upon codefendant's refusal to testify, hence denial of defendants' motion to sever
was not prejudicial. U. S. v. De La Cruz Bellinger, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1970, 422 F.2d 723, certiorari
denied 90 S.Ct. 1860, 398 U.S. 942, 26 L.Ed.2d 278. Criminal Law
1166(6)
109. Declaration as precluding prosecution, prosecution and punishment
Importer has obligation to stop and declare items intended for importation.
C.A.9 (Ariz.) 1979, 597 F.2d 1237. Customs Duties
65
U. S. v. Davis,
Section 1484 of Title 19 relating to five-day period for entry does not grant to one who has
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 47
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
smuggled merchandise into country five days thereafter to enter and declare it and thus wash
away his crime. U. S. v. Boggus, C.A.9 (Ariz.) 1969, 411 F.2d 110, certiorari denied 90 S.Ct.
245, 396 U.S. 919, 24 L.Ed.2d 198. Customs Duties
121
110. Double jeopardy, prosecution and punishment
Defendant's acquittal under previous indictment of conspiracy to smuggle amygdalina would not
support plea of double jeopardy in absence of evidence that combinations of persons named in
the second indictment for conspiracy to smuggle and import merchandise, and persons named in
the first indictment, were encompassed by the same agreement. U. S. v. Westover, C.A.9 (Cal.)
1975, 511 F.2d 1154, certiorari denied 95 S.Ct. 2633, 422 U.S. 1009, 45 L.Ed.2d 673. Double
Jeopardy
151(4)
Where it is necessary in proving one offense to prove every essential element of another growing
out of same act, conviction of former is bar to prosecution for latter. Krench v. U. S., C.C.A.6
(Mich.) 1930, 42 F.2d 354. Double Jeopardy
134
Acquittal on count charging unlawful transportation and possession of intoxicating liquor
without permit from Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in violation of National Prohibition Act,
former § 1 et seq. of Title 27, would not preclude conviction of concealing and transporting
liquors imported into the United States without submission of liquors to customs inspection or
payment of duty thereon, in violation of former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section], since the
same evidence would not sustain both counts, and the one offense was not necessarily included
in the other. Nounes v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (Tex.) 1925, 4 F.2d 833, certiorari denied 45 S.Ct. 513,
268 U.S. 695, 69 L.Ed. 1162.
Where defendant, who was convicted of importation, concealment, transportation, and transfer of
marihuana in federal district court, appealed to court of appeals, and government agreed that
defendant should be granted new trial because conviction might have been tainted by false
testimony of key witness, and court of appeals reversed conviction and granted new trial but
refused to render judgment of acquittal, proper course of defendant was not a habeas corpus
proceeding seeking relief on plea of former jeopardy, but a plea of former jeopardy in bar of
further prosecution. Elchuk v. McCarty, S.D.Tex.1957, 159 F.Supp. 689. Habeas Corpus
275.1
111. Self-incrimination, prosecution and punishment
Prosecution for concealment and facilitating transportation and concealment of amphetamine
tablets without merchandise having been presented for inspection, entered, and declared as
required by § 1459 of Title 19, did not violate defendant's right against self-incrimination on
ground that it required him to give evidence that might be used against him in state criminal
prosecution. U. S. v. Vaught, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1970, 434 F.2d 124, certiorari denied 91 S.Ct. 1197,
401 U.S. 976, 28 L.Ed.2d 326. Criminal Law
393(1)
Prosecution for conspiring to violate customs laws in connection with importation of narcotics
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 48
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
did not violate defendant's privilege against self-incrimination on ground that it required him to
give evidence which might be used against him in state criminal prosecution. U. S. v. Vaught,
C.A.9 (Cal.) 1970, 434 F.2d 124, certiorari denied 91 S.Ct. 1197, 401 U.S. 976, 28 L.Ed.2d 326.
Criminal Law
393(1)
Privilege against self-incrimination of defendant charged with smuggling gold into United States
was not violated by requirement that he declare at border gold brought into United States. U. S.
v. Boggus, C.A.9 (Ariz.) 1969, 411 F.2d 110, certiorari denied 90 S.Ct. 245, 396 U.S. 919, 24
L.Ed.2d 198. Criminal Law
393(1)
Question whether defendant's constitutional rights against self-incrimination were violated by
application of this section providing that proof of defendant's possession of certain goods shall
be deemed evidence sufficient to authorize conviction could not be raised by defendant where
such presumption was taken out of the case by charge requiring the government to prove every
fact necessary to make out the crime, in order to avail itself of the presumption, and where
defendant failed to take the stand. U. S. v. Goldstein, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1963, 323 F.2d 753,
certiorari denied 84 S.Ct. 677, 376 U.S. 920, 11 L.Ed.2d 615. Constitutional Law
42.1(3)
To an indictment for bringing into the United States intoxicating liquor without declaring it with
intent to defraud the revenue, it is not a defense that not having a permit as required by law
defendant's possession of the liquor was unlawful, and in making the declaration he would have
been compelled to give evidence against himself. U.S. v. Dalton, W.D.Wash.1923, 286 F. 756.
Customs Duties
125
Defendant, who was in no danger of prosecution under criminal statute based on allegedly
unlawful importations of merchandise due to plea bargain and running of the statute of
limitations, could not invoke Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination
based on potential prosecution under that statute. U.S. v. Gordon, CIT 1986, 634 F.Supp. 409,
10 C.I.T. 292, motion to vacate denied 11 C.I.T. 192. Witnesses
297(13.1)
112. Discovery and inspection, prosecution and punishment
Where defendant was prosecuted for conspiracy to commit an offense against or to defraud
United States and for receipt and concealment of merchandise brought into United States
contrary to this section, memorandum made by government official after conversations with one
of the alleged conspirators was not a statement which government was required to produce for
defendant, and hence no error could be predicated on the timing of submission of such statement
to defendant, and in any event offer to submit alleged conspirator for further cross-examination
after delivery of government official's memorandum would cure any error if there had been one
made. Badon v. U.S., C.A.5 (La.) 1959, 269 F.2d 75, certiorari denied 80 S.Ct. 199, 361 U.S.
894, 4 L.Ed.2d 152. Criminal Law
627.7(5); Criminal Law
1166(10.10)
113. Disclosure of informant's identity, prosecution and punishment
Where there was no indication that informant was a participant or witness to crimes for which
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 49
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
defendant was tried and convicted of smuggling marijuana and smuggling merchandise, identity
of informant could not have aided defense. U. S. v. Abarca-Espinoza, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1971, 440
F.2d 1354, certiorari denied 92 S.Ct. 984, 405 U.S. 930, 30 L.Ed.2d 805. Criminal Law
627.10(5)
114. Selection of jury, prosecution and punishment
The offense of receiving smuggled goods described in former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this
section] was not to be classed as a felony, so as to entitle defendant to ten peremptory challenges,
although it was punishable by fine and two years' imprisonment, which could be inflicted in a
state penitentiary, since the offense was subordinate to that of smuggling itself, which was
expressly declared a misdemeanor. Reagan v. U.S., U.S.Tex.1895, 15 S.Ct. 610, 157 U.S. 301,
39 L.Ed. 709.
Where newspaper articles relating to prosecution for smuggling and conspiracy in relation to
alleged plot to blow up Statue of Liberty were 12 weeks old at time jury was empanelled it was
highly unlikely that they were retained in memories of jurors and it could not be said that the
pretrial publicity was so intensive and extensive or examination of entire panel revealed such
prejudice that the court could not believe answers of jurors and would be compelled to find bias
or preformed opinion as a matter of law. U. S. v. Bowe, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1966, 360 F.2d 1,
certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 401, 385 U.S. 961, 17 L.Ed.2d 306, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 779, 385
U.S. 1042, 17 L.Ed.2d 686, rehearing denied 87 S.Ct. 1040, 386 U.S. 969, 18 L.Ed.2d 127. Jury
121
In prosecution for conspiracy and smuggling, no need existed to subject jurors to a more detailed
inquiry concerning their associations with certain groups where court's explicit inquiry as to
racial prejudice failed to reveal any such feelings on part of prospective jurors. U. S. v. Bowe,
C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1966, 360 F.2d 1, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 401, 385 U.S. 961, 17 L.Ed.2d 306,
certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 779, 385 U.S. 1042, 17 L.Ed.2d 686, rehearing denied 87 S.Ct. 1040,
386 U.S. 969, 18 L.Ed.2d 127. Jury
131(6)
Where pretrial record in prosecution for conspiracy and smuggling raised possibility that some
testimony at trial would touch on questions of racial animosity, it was entirely proper for court to
ascertain whether fact that prospective juror was a member of the same racial group as
defendants would prejudice his views in their favor, or whether he would be disposed to vote for
conviction to dissociate himself from their views. U. S. v. Bowe, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1966, 360 F.2d 1,
certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 401, 385 U.S. 961, 17 L.Ed.2d 306, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 779, 385
U.S. 1042, 17 L.Ed.2d 686, rehearing denied 87 S.Ct. 1040, 386 U.S. 969, 18 L.Ed.2d 127. Jury
131(6)
Court did not abuse its discretion in prosecution for smuggling and conspiracy by failing to ask
questions submitted by defendants on voir dire relating to pretrial publicity, where defendants
never objected to form of trial judge's questions, which were in substance similar to those
proposed by defendants, or manner in which they were put, and no request was made that judge
address the jurors individually. U. S. v. Bowe, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1966, 360 F.2d 1, certiorari denied
87 S.Ct. 401, 385 U.S. 961, 17 L.Ed.2d 306, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 779, 385 U.S. 1042, 17
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 50
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
L.Ed.2d 686, rehearing denied 87 S.Ct. 1040, 386 U.S. 969, 18 L.Ed.2d 127. Jury
131(10)
115. Conduct of jurors, prosecution and punishment
In prosecution for conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States by knowingly, and
with intent to defraud, introducing certain birds into the United States contrary to law, evidence
supported district court's finding that defendants were not prejudiced by one of the jurors
conversing outside the courtroom during the course of the trial with a witness subpoenaed to
testify on behalf of the government. Steiner v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1956, 229 F.2d 745, certiorari
denied 76 S.Ct. 845, 351 U.S. 953, 100 L.Ed. 1476, rehearing denied 77 S.Ct. 24, 352 U.S. 860,
1 L.Ed.2d 70, certiorari denied 76 S.Ct. 847, 351 U.S. 953, 100 L.Ed. 1476. Criminal Law
1174(5)
116. Withdrawal of juror, prosecution and punishment
In prosecution involving question whether accused had participated in illegal importation of gold
bullion, where witness testified that codefendants could not have secured permit from authorities
of foreign country for exportation of gold because the gold was stolen and court immediately
struck out testimony and ordered jury to disregard it, failure to grant motion to withdraw juror
was not error. U.S. v. Kushner, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1943, 135 F.2d 668, certiorari denied 63 S.Ct.
1449, 320 U.S. 212, 87 L.Ed. 1850, rehearing denied 64 S.Ct. 32, 320 U.S. 808, 88 L.Ed. 488.
Criminal Law
751
117. Comments of court, prosecution and punishment
Comment of court, that he thought certain evidence was competent because it would be
impossible to lawfully import goods, was incompetent and prejudicial. Porto Rico Drug Co. v.
U.S., C.C.A.1 (Puerto Rico) 1926, 15 F.2d 339. Criminal Law
656(9)
Court's remark, in passing on testimony, that there had been perjury, was without prejudice to
defendants. Ford v. U.S., C.C.A.9 (Cal.) 1926, 10 F.2d 339, certiorari granted 46 S.Ct. 475, 271
U.S. 652, 70 L.Ed. 1133, affirmed 47 S.Ct. 531, 273 U.S. 593, 71 L.Ed. 793. Criminal Law
656(5); Criminal Law
1166.22(4.1)
118. Comments of counsel, prosecution and punishment
Prosecutor's closing statement that goods sought to be imported may have been stolen was not
prejudicial where defendant was offered and rejected an opportunity to move for mistrial and
trial court gave curative instruction which had been agreed on by defendant. U. S. v. Jenkins,
C.A.6 (Mich.) 1978, 586 F.2d 635, certiorari denied 99 S.Ct. 1247, 440 U.S. 921, 59 L.Ed.2d
474. Criminal Law
730(1)
While statement of prosecutor in prosecution for smuggling that it was his recollection that
defendant stated that automobile was, at time of viewing by jury, in identically same condition
that it was at time of alleged offense, was careless since there was no such testimony on part of
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 51
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
defendant, jury could not have been significantly misled concerning precise import of the
testimony where prosecutor stated that jury's recollection of evidence was to control, court
instructed jury that statements in argument of counsel were not evidence, defense had an
opportunity, of which it availed itself, to reply to prosecution's alleged misrepresentation, and
trial extended over only one and one-half days. U. S. v. Hudson, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1970, 432 F.2d
413. Criminal Law
730(7)
United States attorney's argument, in prosecution for illegally importing marijuana from Mexico
and for concealing illegally imported marijuana, was proper comment on the partial explanation
the defendant had chosen to make when stopped at border and anticipated argument of defendant
that defendant could not have purchased the marijuana in Mexico because he had no money
when arrested. Klepper v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1964, 331 F.2d 694. Criminal Law
720(7.1)
119. Questions for court, prosecution and punishment
Affecting validity of seizure of liquorladen vessel, evidentiary weight of test of speed of boat
used in landing liquor was a question for court. Ford v. U.S., U.S.Cal.1927, 47 S.Ct. 531, 273
U.S. 593, 71 L.Ed. 793. Criminal Law
736(1)
120. Questions for jury, prosecution and punishment
In prosecution for conspiracy to violate National Prohibition Act, former § 1 et seq. of Title 27,
and this section, refusal to submit to jury issue of validity of seizure of vessel was not error.
Ford v. U.S., U.S.Cal.1927, 47 S.Ct. 531, 273 U.S. 593, 71 L.Ed. 793. Criminal Law
736(1)
Conflict in evidence as to ownership of automobile allegedly used to smuggle amphetamine
sulfate tablets and barbiturate capsules into United States was matter for jury in resultant
prosecution. Pederson v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1968, 392 F.2d 41. Customs Duties
134;
Controlled Substances
94
The evidence, in prosecution for illegally importing marijuana and for concealing illegally
imported marijuana, raised jury question as to whether defendant knew that marijuana was
concealed in automobile in which he was crossing the Mexican border. Klepper v. U. S., C.A.9
(Cal.) 1964, 331 F.2d 694. Controlled Substances
94
In prosecution for violating former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] and former § 483 [now
1595a] of Title 19, and for conspiring to violate such sections, where photostatic copies of
defendant's bank statements showing $15,000 withdrawal was admitted to corroborate testimony
of witness that he had received $15,000 from defendant, defendant's failure to explain or to
recollect the withdrawal was a circumstance which jury might properly consider in weighing
defendant's guilt. U.S. v. Kushner, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1943, 135 F.2d 668, certiorari denied 63
S.Ct. 1449, 320 U.S. 212, 87 L.Ed. 1850, rehearing denied 64 S.Ct. 32, 320 U.S. 808, 88 L.Ed.
488. Conspiracy
44.2; Customs Duties
134
Question whether defendant violated this section by knowingly having possession of mules
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 52
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
which had been smuggled into United States from Mexico was for jury. Sanchez v. U.S.,
C.C.A.5 (Tex.) 1939, 108 F.2d 735, certiorari denied 60 S.Ct. 717, 309 U.S. 679, 84 L.Ed. 1023.
Customs Duties
134
A witness' credibility is solely for the jury, and their province in this respect may not be invaded
by an appellate court. Barone v. U.S., C.C.A.9 (Cal.) 1938, 94 F.2d 902. Criminal Law
1159.4(2)
Evidence in prosecution for smuggling alcohol was sufficient to warrant submission of issue of
guilt to jury. Rissman v. U.S., C.C.A.9 (Cal.) 1932, 62 F.2d 164, certiorari denied 53 S.Ct. 687,
289 U.S. 742, 77 L.Ed. 1489. Customs Duties
134
Guilt of unlawfully and knowingly introducing narcotic drugs into commerce of United States by
fraudulent scheme was for jury. Vachuda v. U.S., C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1927, 21 F.2d 409.
Controlled Substances
94
In prosecution for conspiracy to violate former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] and
National Prohibition Act, former § 1 et seq. of Title 27, question whether there was one
conspiracy or several independent conspiracies was for jury. McDonnell v. U.S., C.C.A.1
(Mass.) 1927, 19 F.2d 801, certiorari denied 48 S.Ct. 114, 275 U.S. 551, 72 L.Ed. 421.
Conspiracy
48
Whether Mexican gold coin concealed on person was seasonably disclosed to customs inspector
was a question for the jury. Lozano v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (Tex.) 1927, 17 F.2d 7. Customs Duties
133(7)
In prosecution for conspiring to fraudulently import and bring intoxicating liquor into the United
States, question of defendant's guilt was for the jury. Lee v. U S, C.C.A.1 (Mass.) 1926, 14 F.2d
400, certiorari granted 47 S.Ct. 336, 273 U.S. 686, 71 L.Ed. 840, reversed on other grounds 47
S.Ct. 746, 274 U.S. 559, 71 L.Ed. 1202.
Evidence that whisky had been brought across international line was sufficient for jury, in
prosecution for unlawful importation, even without aid of inference raised by concluding
sentence of former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section]. Kurczak v. U. S., C.C.A.6 (Mich.)
1926, 14 F.2d 109. Customs Duties
134
Proof did not establish that liquors were imported into country and submission to jury was error.
Romano v. U.S., C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1925, 9 F.2d 522. Customs Duties
134
Evidence that liquors received by defendant bore foreign labels and did not have thereon any
custom house marks or brands, and that defendant was found in a room with the goods, from
some of which the foreign marks had been scraped off, made defendant's knowledge that the
goods were imported a question for the jury. U S v. Bookbinder, E.D.Pa.1922, 281 F. 207.
Customs Duties
134
121. Instructions, prosecution and punishment
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 53
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
In prosecution for attempting to introduce goods into United States by means of false statement
and smuggling goods into United States, jury instruction that Government had to prove
defendant attempted to pass documents through customhouse and that he acted knowingly and
willfully and with intent to defraud United States was for all practical purposes equivalent to jury
instruction requested by defendant and thus there was no prejudice. U.S. v. Borello, C.A.2
(N.Y.) 1985, 766 F.2d 46, on remand 624 F.Supp. 150. Criminal Law
1137(3)
In prosecution for illegally importing merchandise into United States without presenting and
declaring that merchandise to customs agents, district court was not required to submit requested
instruction on defendant's theory of case that set out defense in narrative form. U. S. v. Davis,
C.A.9 (Ariz.) 1979, 597 F.2d 1237. Criminal Law
805(1)
Charge in prosecution for possession and importation of federal counterfeit federal reserve notes
that jury could determine that counterfeit money was "merchandise" within statutory definition if
it was exchangeable for goods or services or genuine money was not plainly erroneous. U. S. v.
Asbury, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1978, 586 F.2d 973. Criminal Law
1038.1(4)
To discuss credibility in jury instruction specifically in terms of choosing between government
witnesses and defendant's witnesses is improper since it invites jury to treat matter of proof as
fair fight between prosecution and defendant rather than as one weighted in defendant's favor by
reasonable doubt rule. U. S. v. Guest, C.A.1 (Mass.) 1975, 514 F.2d 777. Criminal Law
785(3)
Reading to jury of this section which raised unconstitutional presumption of defendant's
knowledge of smuggled nature of cocaine was not rendered harmless by instruction that each
element of the crime charged (smuggling of cocaine) must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt
or by existence of ample circumstantial evidence on which to base a finding of knowledge. U. S.
v. Kenaan, C.A.1 (Mass.) 1974, 496 F.2d 181. Criminal Law
823(9)
Where customs agent testified that when defendant was confronted with watches and watch
movements found under his bed, he said, "This is illegal.", and defendant testified that he spoke
these words to customs agent but that he posed remark in form of a question, giving of
instruction that defendant's statement constituted an admission of guilt by him usurped function
of jury as a fact finder, and, when viewed in conjunction with other improprieties in close factual
case, required reversal. U. S. v. Grunberger, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1970, 431 F.2d 1062. Criminal Law
763(20); Criminal Law
1172.2
Violations of this section forbidding knowingly and wilfully smuggling into the United States,
with intent to defraud, any merchandise which should have been invoiced and proscription
against fraudulently or knowingly importing or bringing into United States any merchandise
contrary to law were not offenses necessarily included in offense of importing and bringing two
ounces of heroin into the United States in violation of former § § 173 and 174 of Title 21, and
defendant was not entitled to a lesser-included offense instruction. Olais-Castro v. U. S., C.A.9
(Cal.) 1969, 416 F.2d 1155. Criminal Law
795(2.70)
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 54
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
In prosecution for violation of § 1461 of Title 19 requiring all merchandise and baggage
imported or brought in from any contiguous country to be unladen in presence of and be
inspected by customs officer at port of entry, reading to jury this section condemning bringing
merchandise into United States knowing same to have been brought in contrary to law without
also reading or instructing as to provisions of § 1461 of Title 19 allegedly violated was not plain
error requiring reversal, where both sides recognized necessary element of offense-failure to
unload for inspection, information stated it as element, and omission of it from charge was
obviously inadvertence. Olar v. U. S., C.A.9 (Ariz.) 1968, 391 F.2d 773. Criminal Law
1038.2
Examples given in jury instructions to explain difference between actual and constructive
possession and between joint and sole possession were of aid to the proper consideration of
prosecution for smuggling 30 pounds of marijuana into the United States, concealing and
transporting said marijuana within the United States and smuggling two revolvers and certain
ammunition into the United States, and examples were not unfair, confused, or misleading, so
that their use did not constitute error. Spigner v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1966, 369 F.2d 686,
certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 1165, 386 U.S. 971, 18 L.Ed.2d 131, rehearing denied 87 S.Ct. 1372,
386 U.S. 1027, 18 L.Ed.2d 472. Criminal Law
800(1)
Instruction, in prosecution for illegally importing marijuana from Mexico and for concealing
illegally imported marijuana, that defendant's possession of marijuana was sufficient to convict
unless defendant sufficiently explained his possession to jury was proper, where the border
officials testified that they saw the automobile in which the marijuana was concealed physically
come across the border. Klepper v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1964, 331 F.2d 694. Controlled
Substances
98
Striking of evidence as to finding of similar unmarked watch movements in defendant's house
and the instruction of jury to disregard such evidence cured any possible error prejudicial to
defendant, charged with fraudulently facilitating the transportation of and fraudulently receiving
Swiss watch movements knowing the same to have been imported illegally. U. S. v. Blum,
C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1964, 329 F.2d 49, certiorari denied 84 S.Ct. 1920, 377 U.S. 993, 12 L.Ed.2d 1045.
Criminal Law
1169.5(3)
This section, entitled "Smuggling Goods Into the United States", has to do with smuggling, and
even though indictment only charged illegally importing merchandise, use of word "smuggling"
in judge's instructions to jury was not harmful where he made special reference to charge in
indictment and made explanation of presumption of possession authorizing conviction. U. S. v.
Quong, C.A.6 (Tenn.) 1962, 303 F.2d 499, certiorari denied 83 S.Ct. 119, 371 U.S. 863, 9
L.Ed.2d 100. Criminal Law
1172.3
In prosecution for fraudulently and knowingly concealing and facilitating transportation of cattle
knowing they had been imported into United States without making an entry thereof, instruction
that if jury believed certain government witnesses were accomplice witnesses they should
consider testimony of such witnesses as they believed to be accomplices with caution and should
not accept it unless it harmonized with other evidence in case so as to leave no reasonable doubt
of its truth, was sufficient. Babb v. U.S., C.A.5 (Tex.) 1958, 252 F.2d 702, certiorari denied 78
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 55
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
S.Ct. 1137, 356 U.S. 974, 2 L.Ed.2d 1147. Criminal Law
780(3)
In prosecution for fraudulently and knowingly concealing and facilitating transportation of cattle
knowing they had been imported into United States without making an entry thereof, instruction
requiring jury to find beyond reasonable doubt specific intent to commit acts charged was not
objectionable on ground that it did not require jury to find that defendant knew cattle were
brought into country in violation of some specific law and that defendant actually knew
provisions of specific laws contrary to which cattle were imported. Babb v. U.S., C.A.5 (Tex.)
1958, 252 F.2d 702, certiorari denied 78 S.Ct. 1137, 356 U.S. 974, 2 L.Ed.2d 1147. Customs
Duties
134
In prosecutions for conspiracy to smuggle psittacine birds into United States, for smuggling such
birds into United States, and for receiving, concealing and transporting such birds, instruction on
entrapment was not required where government agency did not plant any idea in defendants'
minds but merely went along with criminal plan and obtained recording of defendants' plans
through recording device placed upon an informer. Murray v. U.S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1957, 250 F.2d
489, certiorari denied 78 S.Ct. 1375, 357 U.S. 932, 2 L.Ed.2d 1373. Criminal Law
814(8)
Charge in prosecution for conspiracy to smuggle was not subject to claimed objection of
authorizing conviction on mere proof of possession by a defendant, and properly required
showing of concert or combination to violate law. U.S. v. McKee, C.A.2 (Vt.) 1955, 220 F.2d
266. Conspiracy
48.1(2.1)
In prosecution of one of three persons charged with knowingly receiving, concealing, and
transporting a number of Charolaise cattle, after importation, knowing them to have been
imported contrary to law, admission of testimony of another of the three, a witness for the
government, that he had pleaded guilty to all of counts of indictment, was error, and court should
have instructed jury, as requested by defendant, not to consider such testimony for any purpose
as bearing upon defendant's guilt. Babb v. U.S., C.A.5 (Tex.) 1955, 218 F.2d 538. Criminal
Law
422(2); Criminal Law
783.5
In prosecution for illegally conspiring to smuggle cattle into the United States from Mexico,
charge respecting the hoof-and-mouth disease, quarantine making it illegal to bring live cattle
from Mexico was not error because the hoof-and-mouth disease statute or regulation was not
cited in the indictment. Babb v. U.S., C.A.5 (Tex.) 1954, 210 F.2d 473. Criminal Law
814(1)
Instructions that offense charged was conspiracy unlawfully to import liquor was not misleading
or insufficient, although not specifically mentioning statute imposing customs duties. Moyer v.
U.S., C.C.A.9 (Cal.) 1935, 78 F.2d 624. Conspiracy
48.2(2)
In prosecution for facilitating concealment of liquor in a motorboat with knowledge that it had
been unlawfully imported, evidence on question whether defendants were in charge of and
operating the boat required refusal of peremptory instruction. Kajander v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (Fla.)
1934, 69 F.2d 222. Customs Duties
134
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 56
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
Instruction defining "smuggle" was insufficient. Wishart v. U.S., C.C.A.8 (N.D.) 1928, 29 F.2d
103.
In conspiracy prosecution instruction requiring close scrutiny of testimony of accomplices was
properly rejected, as abstract and inconsistent with defense. Newman v. U.S., C.C.A.9 (Wash.)
1928, 28 F.2d 681, certiorari denied 49 S.Ct. 253, 279 U.S. 839, 73 L.Ed. 986. Criminal Law
814(15)
Requested instruction that there was no evidence that alcohol, whisky, and intoxicating liquor
were imported, was properly denied. McDonnell v. U.S., C.C.A.1 (Mass.) 1927, 19 F.2d 801,
certiorari denied 48 S.Ct. 114, 275 U.S. 551, 72 L.Ed. 421. Conspiracy
48
Instructions on trial under former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] were erroneous and
prejudicial as violating former § 632 of Title 28 [now § 3481 of this title]. Linden v. U.S.,
C.C.A.3 (N.J.) 1924, 296 F. 104.
On a trial for importing cigarettes, etc., where the court had fully charged as to the presumption
of innocence, and as to reasonable doubt, and had explained the statutory presumption arising
from the possession of the property, the refusal of a requested instruction that, where the
evidence was susceptible of two constructions, from one of which the jury might draw an
inference of guilt and from the other an inference of innocence, defendant was entitled as a
matter of law to the benefit of the inference of innocence, was not error, especially as it might be
construed as referring to separate pieces of evidence. Friedman v. U.S., C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1921,
276 F. 792. Criminal Law
829(9)
Jury instructions, stating that proof of defendant's possession of marijuana, unless explained,
"shall be deemed evidence sufficient to authorize conviction," and that defendant's knowledge
could be inferred from his possession, improperly suggested to the jury that defendant's
knowledge was required to be inferred from possession, in prosecution for conspiracy to import
marijuana, attempted smuggling of marijuana, and attempted importation of marijuana, where
key disputed issue was whether defendant was aware of the marijuana that was found in his truck
and trailer. U.S. v. Huang, C.A.9 (Mont.) 2004, 87 Fed.Appx. 656, 2004 WL 232385,
Unreported, appeal after new trial 2006 WL 529740. Conspiracy
48.2(2); Controlled
Substances
96
122. Verdict, prosecution and punishment
Trial judge properly recorded jury's verdict of guilty on conspiracy count of indictment and sent
them back to deliberate on count for importation of narcotics when they reported their inability
to agree thereon. U.S. v. Frankel, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1933, 65 F.2d 285, certiorari denied 54 S.Ct.
119, 290 U.S. 682, 78 L.Ed. 588. Criminal Law
872
123. Sentence, prosecution and punishment
Evidence was sufficient to show that there were two distinct conspiracies, one to smuggle
Laetrile into the country, and one to receive and distribute the smuggled goods, so that
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 57
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
imposition of consecutive sentences on defendants, in the form of fines for each offense, did not
constitute double jeopardy. U. S. v. Richardson, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1978, 588 F.2d 1235, certiorari
denied 99 S.Ct. 1426, 440 U.S. 947, 59 L.Ed.2d 636, rehearing denied 99 S.Ct. 2064, 441 U.S.
937, 60 L.Ed.2d 667, certiorari denied 99 S.Ct. 2049, 441 U.S. 931, 60 L.Ed.2d 658. Double
Jeopardy
151(2)
Offense of knowingly and with intent to defraud introducing merchandise into the United States
contrary to law is a felony and conspiracy to commit such unlawful importation by importation
of certain birds was punishable as a felony rather than as a misdemeanor, notwithstanding the
fact there is § 271 of Title 42 making violation of "quarantine laws" a misdemeanor. Steiner v.
U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1956, 229 F.2d 745, certiorari denied 76 S.Ct. 845, 351 U.S. 953, 100 L.Ed.
1476, rehearing denied 77 S.Ct. 24, 352 U.S. 860, 1 L.Ed.2d 70, certiorari denied 76 S.Ct. 847,
351 U.S. 953, 100 L.Ed. 1476. Conspiracy
51
Where offense of knowingly and with intent to defraud introducing merchandise into the United
States contrary to law was punishable under this section making persons guilty of such
importation subject to imprisonment of not more than three years, such offense was a felony and
defendants who unlawfully imported certain birds were properly sentenced under portion of §
371 of this title applicable to felonies notwithstanding fact there are § § 42, 43 of this title
making unlawful importation of certain animals and fish a misdemeanor. Steiner v. U. S., C.A.9
(Cal.) 1956, 229 F.2d 745, certiorari denied 76 S.Ct. 845, 351 U.S. 953, 100 L.Ed. 1476,
rehearing denied 77 S.Ct. 24, 352 U.S. 860, 1 L.Ed.2d 70, certiorari denied 76 S.Ct. 847, 351
U.S. 953, 100 L.Ed. 1476. Conspiracy
51; Criminal Law
27
Defendant, by pleading guilty to charge of conspiracy to smuggle, waived objection that
punishment should have been assessed under § 271 of Title 42, prescribing penalties for
violation of quarantine laws. Murray v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1954, 217 F.2d 583. Criminal Law
273.4(1)
One may be given different penalties, to run consecutively, for conspiracy to smuggle and for
perjury, although perjury conviction was based upon same facts as one of the overt acts charged
in the conspiracy count. Murray v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1954, 217 F.2d 583. Sentencing And
Punishment
606
Fact that defendant's sentence for smuggling birds into United States and a sentence for perjury
in that he falsely swore that certain birds had been raised by him or purchased in California were
to run consecutively did not constitute "double penalty" notwithstanding contention that the two
counts arose out of same transaction. Murray v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1954, 217 F.2d 583.
Sentencing And Punishment
604
The receiving and concealment of smuggled intoxicating liquor, and the transporting of such
smuggled liquor to another place, are separate offenses, and separate sentences for such offenses
charged under different counts of indictment did not constitute "double punishment". Gorsuch v.
U. S., C.C.A.6 (Mich.) 1929, 34 F.2d 279.
Master of liquor-laden vessel without manifest was liable to penalty equal to value of cargo, in
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 58
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
addition to $500 penalty. The Mistinguette, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1928, 27 F.2d 738, certiorari denied
49 S.Ct. 28, 278 U.S. 627, 73 L.Ed. 547. Customs Duties
129
Fine of $200 for violating former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] was not open to
complaint of being cruel or unusual punishment. Hernandez v. U.S., C.C.A.1 (Puerto Rico)
1926, 15 F.2d 190. Sentencing And Punishment
1505; Sentencing And Punishment
1560
Where an indictment in one count charged conspiracy to unlawfully possess liquor, in violation
of National Prohibition Act, former § 1 et seq. of Title 27, and in other count charged
concealment of smuggled liquor knowing it to have been smuggled, in violation of former §
1593 of Title 19 [now this section], the court did not err in assessing separate punishments under
each count, though the offenses arose out of one transaction. Powers v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (Tex.)
1923, 294 F. 512. Sentencing And Punishment
533
124. New trial, prosecution and punishment
In prosecution for unlawful importation of narcotics, wherein government was not shown to have
known that defendant's automobile, which was brought to jury at defendant's request, would be
used in evidentiary capacity, and jurors during their deliberations asked court if there was visible
certificate on automobile, and it was conceded that any removal of certificate by government
agents might have been innocent, motion to reopen or for new trial, in order to introduce
defendant's testimony that certificate had been on automobile when taken by authorities at border
and was not on automobile when it was viewed by jurors, contained no implicit suggestion that
government agents had tampered with evidence. Eason v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1960, 281 F.2d
818. Criminal Law
686(1); Criminal Law
949(1)
125. Harmless or prejudicial error, prosecution and punishment
In prosecution for entry of goods into the United States by means of false statement and
smuggling goods into the United States, admission of evidence that goods involved were
obtained by defendant in burglaries was error; however, in light of overwhelming evidence of
defendant's guilt, error was harmless. U. S. v. Durcan, C.A.9 (Wash.) 1976, 539 F.2d 29.
Criminal Law
369.1; Criminal Law
1169.11
In prosecution for receiving methaqualone after importation into country without customs
inspection and declaration, knowing of such illegal importation, admission of witness' testimony
regarding statement of source of methaqualone that smuggling operation had been "done several
times before" was not plain error where evidence showed that defendant, in response to
telephone call, picked up automobile containing contraband when it arrived in United States. U.
S. v. Guest, C.A.1 (Mass.) 1975, 514 F.2d 777. Criminal Law
1036.1(3.1)
Failure to hold voir dire hearing on admissibility of defendant's statements to customs agents
before Miranda warning was error, but was harmless where statements were made before
Miranda warnings were required. U. S. v. Kurfess, C.A.7 (Ill.) 1970, 426 F.2d 1017, certiorari
denied 91 S.Ct. 60, 400 U.S. 830, 27 L.Ed.2d 60. Criminal Law
414; Criminal Law
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 59
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
1169.12
In prosecution for conspiracy and smuggling in relation to alleged plot to blow up Statue of
Liberty, receipt of testimony concerning one defendant's trip to Cuba and his association with
racist group and a Canadian separatist organization was not prejudicial as to other two
defendants where trial court repeated several times to jury that the evidence could not be
considered with respect to either of them. U. S. v. Bowe, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1966, 360 F.2d 1,
certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 401, 385 U.S. 961, 17 L.Ed.2d 306, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 779, 385
U.S. 1042, 17 L.Ed.2d 686, rehearing denied 87 S.Ct. 1040, 386 U.S. 969, 18 L.Ed.2d 127.
Criminal Law
673(4)
In smuggling prosecution, evidence of telephone conversation between one accused and
unidentified person, relating to state prosecution which government could not connect with
federal prosecution, did not require reversal as to any accused, in view of former § 391 [now
2111] of Title 28, relating to harmless error, where court promptly struck out evidence, and
evidence otherwise clearly established charges against accused who participated in conversation.
U.S. v. Nardone, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1937, 90 F.2d 630, certiorari granted 58 S.Ct. 27, 302 U.S. 668,
82 L.Ed. 515, reversed 58 S.Ct. 275, 302 U.S. 379, 82 L.Ed. 314. Criminal Law
1169.5(2)
126. Record, prosecution and punishment
Record did not sustain contention that defendant had not knowingly and intelligently waived his
constitutional rights after receiving Miranda warnings. U. S. v. Kurfess, C.A.7 (Ill.) 1970, 426
F.2d 1017, certiorari denied 91 S.Ct. 60, 400 U.S. 830, 27 L.Ed.2d 60. Criminal Law
414
Record did not sustain contention that defendant had been denied effective assistance of counsel.
U. S. v. Kurfess, C.A.7 (Ill.) 1970, 426 F.2d 1017, certiorari denied 91 S.Ct. 60, 400 U.S. 830, 27
L.Ed.2d 60. Criminal Law
641.13(2.1)
127. Review, prosecution and punishment
Where concurrent sentences were imposed on convictions for conspiracy to smuggle and import
merchandise illegally and for smuggling and illegal importation of merchandise, reviewing court
was required to sustain only one conviction to affirm the judgment. U. S. v. Westover, C.A.9
(Cal.) 1975, 511 F.2d 1154, certiorari denied 95 S.Ct. 2633, 422 U.S. 1009, 45 L.Ed.2d 673.
Criminal Law
1177
Where one defendant was given seven-year sentence on count for assaulting customs agent and
five-year concurrent sentence on count for smuggling, and codefendant was given concurrent
sentences on both counts, and convictions for assault were valid, reviewing court was not
required to consider sufficiency of evidence on smuggling count. U. S. v. De La Cruz Bellinger,
C.A.9 (Cal.) 1970, 422 F.2d 723, certiorari denied 90 S.Ct. 1860, 398 U.S. 942, 26 L.Ed.2d 278.
Criminal Law
1177
In prosecution for conspiracy and smuggling in relation to alleged plot to blow up Statue of
Liberty, allegations of error by two defendants with respect to testimony concerning racist
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 60
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
organization and Canadian separatist organization to which third defendant belonged could not
be sustained when no objection was raised before trial court and, in any event, such evidence was
clearly relevant to the conspiracy. U. S. v. Bowe, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1966, 360 F.2d 1, certiorari
denied 87 S.Ct. 401, 385 U.S. 961, 17 L.Ed.2d 306, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 779, 385 U.S.
1042, 17 L.Ed.2d 686, rehearing denied 87 S.Ct. 1040, 386 U.S. 969, 18 L.Ed.2d 127.
Conspiracy
45; Criminal Law
1036.1(3.1)
Indictment for conspiracy to smuggle gave adequate notice of crime charged, even though it ran
together separate elements of smuggling and clandestine introduction, and, without showing of
substantial prejudice, could not be attacked on appeal by defendants who had never asked for bill
of particulars. U.S. v. McKee, C.A.2 (Vt.) 1955, 220 F.2d 266. Criminal Law
1032(5);
Indictment And Information
71.4(3)
Defendant, not objecting or excepting to judge's statement in answer to jury's question whether
defendant was ever indicted or tried for smuggling that he had never been convicted so far as
records showed, could not complain thereof on appeal as equivocal or implying that defendant
had been indicted or tried. U.S. v. Frankel, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1933, 65 F.2d 285, certiorari denied
54 S.Ct. 119, 290 U.S. 682, 78 L.Ed. 588. Criminal Law
1035(8.1)
IV. EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES
<Subdivision Index>
Admissibility of evidence 154-165
Admissibility of evidence - Generally 154
Admissibility of evidence - Admissions or confessions 155
Admissibility of evidence - Best evidence rule 156
Admissibility of evidence - Codefendant's statements 157
Admissibility of evidence - Fruits of search and seizure 158
Admissibility of evidence - Hearsay 159
Admissibility of evidence - Identification evidence 160
Admissibility of evidence - Intent 161
Admissibility of evidence - Knowledge 162
Admissibility of evidence - Opinion evidence 163
Admissibility of evidence - Other offenses 164
Admissibility of evidence - Photographs 165
Admissions or confessions, admissibility of evidence 155
Aiding and abetting, weight and sufficiency of evidence 170
Best evidence rule, admissibility of evidence 156
Burden of proof 153
Codefendant's statements, admissibility of evidence 157
Conspiracy, weight and sufficiency of evidence 171
Corroboration of evidence 167
Defenses 180
Examination of witnesses 178
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 61
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
Fruits of search and seizure, admissibility of evidence 158
Hearsay, admissibility of evidence 159
Identification evidence, admissibility of evidence 160
Impeachment of witnesses 179
Importation contrary to law, weight and sufficiency of evidence 172
Inferences 168
Intent, admissibility of evidence 161
Intent, weight and sufficiency of evidence 173
Judicial notice 151
Knowledge, admissibility of evidence 162
Knowledge, weight and sufficiency of evidence 174
Opinion evidence, admissibility of evidence 163
Other offenses, admissibility of evidence 164
Photographs, admissibility of evidence 165
Possession of goods, weight and sufficiency of evidence 175
Presumptions 152
Receiving, concealing, etc., contraband, weight and sufficiency of evidence
176
Smuggling or clandestine introduction, weight and sufficiency of evidence
177
Suppression of evidence 166
Weight and sufficiency of evidence 169-177
Weight and sufficiency of evidence - Generally 169
Weight and sufficiency of evidence - Aiding and abetting 170
Weight and sufficiency of evidence - Conspiracy 171
Weight and sufficiency of evidence - Importation contrary to law 172
Weight and sufficiency of evidence - Intent 173
Weight and sufficiency of evidence - Knowledge 174
Weight and sufficiency of evidence - Possession of goods 175
Weight and sufficiency of evidence - Receiving, concealing, etc., contraband 176
Weight and sufficiency of evidence - Smuggling or clandestine introduction 177
151. Judicial notice, evidence and witnesses
Court might take judicial notice of official charts published by War Department [now
Department of Army] showing location of international boundary in determining venue under
former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section]. Krench v. U. S., C.C.A.6 (Mich.) 1930, 42 F.2d
354. Criminal Law
304(17)
152. Presumptions, evidence and witnesses
Presumption created by provision of this section that possession of illegally imported
merchandise is sufficient evidence to authorize conviction for facilitating transportation and
concealment after importation does not arise except on proof that particular goods were
unlawfully imported. U. S. v. Meyer, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1970, 432 F.2d 1000. Controlled Substances
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 62
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
68
Where foreign whisky was found in defendant's possession long after importation was forbidden,
presumption arose that whisky was unlawfully imported, and would support conviction, unless
satisfactorily explained. Shore v. U.S., App.D.C.1932, 56 F.2d 490, 61 App.D.C. 18, certiorari
denied 52 S.Ct. 408, 285 U.S. 552, 76 L.Ed. 942. Customs Duties
134
That defendant transporting liquor in automobile filed when accosted by officer did not tend to
prove him guilty of importing liquor. Kennedy v. U.S., C.C.A.9 (Mont.) 1930, 44 F.2d 131.
Criminal Law
351(3)
Statutory presumption does not relieve government of burden of showing beyond reasonable
doubt that merchandise alleged to be unlawfully imported was really brought into United States.
Tomplain v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (La.) 1930, 42 F.2d 205. Customs Duties
134
Evidence showing liquor bore marks indicating foreign origin was sufficient to show prima facie
that it came from without country. Tomplain v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (La.) 1930, 42 F.2d 203, certiorari
denied 51 S.Ct. 89, 282 U.S. 886, 75 L.Ed. 781. Customs Duties
134
The presumption which was raised by former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] was simply
that, where possession of goods which had been proved to have been imported contrary to law
was shown, the burden of explaining such possession was placed upon the defendant, but said
section did not raise any presumption that the goods were imported contrary to law; the burden
of proving this fact beyond a reasonable doubt rested upon the government. Sherman v. U.S.,
C.C.A.5 (Tex.) 1920, 268 F. 516.
Knowledge is prerequisite to presumption under provision of this section that possession of
smuggled goods is presumed to be unlawful. U. S. v. Hou Wan Lee, S.D.N.Y.1967, 264 F.Supp.
804. Customs Duties
134
153. Burden of proof, evidence and witnesses
To secure conviction for smuggling, government must prove physical act of unlawful
importation as well as knowing and willful intent to defraud United States. One Lot Emerald
Cut Stones and One Ring v. U. S., U.S.Fla.1972, 93 S.Ct. 489, 409 U.S. 232, 34 L.Ed.2d 438.
Customs Duties
121
Defendant had burden of proving duress by preponderance of the evidence as defense to charge
of unlawful importation of merchandise. U.S. v. Dominguez-Mestas, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1991, 929
F.2d 1379, rehearing denied, certiorari denied 112 S.Ct. 419, 502 U.S. 958, 116 L.Ed.2d 440.
Criminal Law
330; Criminal Law
569
To prove an offense under this section proscribing smuggling goods into the United States, the
government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant: received, concealed, bought,
sold, or facilitated the transportation, concealment, or sale; of merchandise after importation;
knowing the same to have been imported contrary to law. U. S. v. Molt, C.A.3 (Pa.) 1980, 615
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 63
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
F.2d 141. Customs Duties
134
In prosecution for concealing and facilitating transportation of marijuana in violation of former §
176a of Title 21 and of importing benzedrine tablets in violation of this section, burden of
showing probable cause for warrantless arrest and search of defendant and motor vehicle at place
other than border was on the government. U. S. v. Cleaver, C.A.9 (Ariz.) 1968, 402 F.2d 148,
certiorari denied 89 S.Ct. 1312, 394 U.S. 966, 22 L.Ed.2d 568. Criminal Law
394.5(4)
Fact that some of the corroborative circumstances shown by the government for purpose of
sustaining burden of showing probable cause for warrantless search, which was not a border
search of defendant and motor vehicle for marijuana and benzedrine tablets, may have had every
appearance of innocent behavior on part of defendant was not controlling in determining whether
government sustained burden of showing probable cause for arrest and search. U. S. v. Cleaver,
C.A.9 (Ariz.) 1968, 402 F.2d 148, certiorari denied 89 S.Ct. 1312, 394 U.S. 966, 22 L.Ed.2d 568.
Arrest
63.4(6)
One cannot have intent to "defraud" unless some value attaches to merchandise clandestinely
brought across border, and burden was on government to show commercial value of marijuana
allegedly illegally imported; and to sustain such burden, government was entitled to introduce
evidence of value in Mexico of marijuana illegally imported therefrom. Current v. U. S., C.A.9
(Cal.) 1961, 287 F.2d 268. Customs Duties
134; Controlled Substances
69
Government, in prosecution for receiving, concealing, and facilitating transportation of gold
bullion knowing the same to have been imported contrary to law, had burden of proving
unlawful importation, but it was not necessary to prove guilty knowledge where accused did not
take the stand to explain possession. U S v. Minneci, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1944, 142 F.2d 428.
Customs Duties
134
On a trial for smuggling and concealing smuggled merchandise when the government had
established defendant's possession of the incriminating articles, former § 1593 of Title 19 [now
this section] placed on defendant the burden of proving his innocence. Barone v. U.S., C.C.A.9
(Cal.) 1938, 94 F.2d 902. Customs Duties
134
Government, in prosecution for receiving and concealing liquor unlawfully imported, has burden
of proving unlawful importation. Kennedy v. U.S., C.C.A.9 (Mont.) 1930, 44 F.2d 131.
Customs Duties
134
Government, in prosecution under indictment for receiving and concealing whisky smuggled
from Canada, was required to prove importation from Canada, though such charge was not
essential to indictment. Kennedy v. U.S., C.C.A.9 (Mont.) 1930, 44 F.2d 131. Customs Duties
134
To warrant conviction for unlawful "importation of liquor" it must be shown that it came from a
foreign port. Brown v. U.S., C.C.A.1 (Mass.) 1926, 16 F.2d 682. Customs Duties
134
Indictment charging unlawful importation must be sustained by proof that liquors were brought
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 64
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
into United States from outside United States.
Customs Duties
134
U.S. v. Gully, D.C.N.Y.1922, 9 F.2d 959.
Burden rests on government to prove importation of liquor was within judicial district where
prosecution was had. Romano v. U.S., C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1925, 9 F.2d 522. Customs Duties
134; Intoxicating Liquors
224
154. Admissibility of evidence, evidence and witnesses--Generally
In conspiracy prosecution, evidence was sufficiently connected with conspiracy to be admissible.
Ford v. U.S., U.S.Cal.1927, 47 S.Ct. 531, 273 U.S. 593, 71 L.Ed. 793. Conspiracy
45
In prosecution for receiving methaqualone after importation into country without customs
inspection and declaration, knowing of such illegal importation, admission of testimony of
witness regarding statement by source of methaqualone that persons in United States were
"waiting for the stuff" was not error, at least where evidence showed that defendant, in response
to telephone call, picked up automobile containing contraband after it arrived in United States.
U. S. v. Guest, C.A.1 (Mass.) 1975, 514 F.2d 777. Criminal Law
417(12)
In prosecution for receiving methaqualone after importation into this country without customs
inspection and declaration knowing of such illegal importation, admission of testimony of person
who brought contraband across Canadian border as to what he said in making phone call to
person to whom he was to deliver contraband was not error, at least where defendant,
inferentially in response to said telephone call, picked up automobile containing contraband. U.
S. v. Guest, C.A.1 (Mass.) 1975, 514 F.2d 777. Criminal Law
385
In prosecution of defendant for conspiring to smuggle amphetamine tablets into the United
States, evidence that a certain individual was dealing in amphetamine tablets in the United
States, that these tablets were made by the same press as those found in defendant's possession,
and that numerous telephone calls were made between the telephone listed to such individual and
a telephone which had been listed by defendant under an assumed name, was admissible as
tending to prove defendant's connection with importation of the tablets into the United States.
Brulay v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1967, 383 F.2d 345, certiorari denied 88 S.Ct. 469, 389 U.S. 986,
19 L.Ed.2d 478. Criminal Law
338(2)
Evidence of two rifles and several clips of ammunition which were taken from first defendant
charged with conspiracy and smuggling at time of his arrest was properly received as to second
defendant where latter was fully protected by court's instruction that such evidence was received
only with respect to first defendant. U. S. v. Bowe, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1966, 360 F.2d 1, certiorari
denied 87 S.Ct. 401, 385 U.S. 961, 17 L.Ed.2d 306, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 779, 385 U.S.
1042, 17 L.Ed.2d 686, rehearing denied 87 S.Ct. 1040, 386 U.S. 969, 18 L.Ed.2d 127. Criminal
Law
673(4)
In prosecution for smuggling and conspiracy relative to alleged plot to blow up Statue of Liberty,
trial judge correctly concluded that confusion and delay which would have resulted from
introduction of testimony of third party that government witness had asked him to participate in a
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 65
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
plan to blow up Statue of Liberty outweighed its slight probative value. U. S. v. Bowe, C.A.2
(N.Y.) 1966, 360 F.2d 1, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 401, 385 U.S. 961, 17 L.Ed.2d 306, certiorari
denied 87 S.Ct. 779, 385 U.S. 1042, 17 L.Ed.2d 686, rehearing denied 87 S.Ct. 1040, 386 U.S.
969, 18 L.Ed.2d 127. Criminal Law
417(1)
Certificate of Swiss Consul in New York that for certain period there had been no reports from
customs offices, pursuant to agreement and instruction, of unmarked watch movements
answering description of movements found in defendant's possession, was admissible to prove
unlawful importation. U. S. v. Blum, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1964, 329 F.2d 49, certiorari denied 84 S.Ct.
1920, 377 U.S. 993, 12 L.Ed.2d 1045. Customs Duties
134
In prosecution for conspiracy to smuggle, trial court's rulings on admission or exclusion of
evidence were either within discretion or not prejudicial. U.S. v. McKee, C.A.2 (Vt.) 1955, 220
F.2d 266. Criminal Law
1153(1); Criminal Law
1169.1(2.1); Criminal Law
1170(1)
In prosecution for conspiracy to smuggle cattle into the United States contrary to law and
conspiring to receive, conceal and transport the cattle, evidence with reference to the seizure by
the custom officers of the cattle was not inadmissible though it indicated the commission of a
federal crime not mentioned in indictment where the seizures were merely explanatory of how
the cattle came into the possession of the custom officers. Babb v. U.S., C.A.5 (Tex.) 1954, 210
F.2d 473. Criminal Law
369.2(4)
In prosecution for conspiracy to illegally smuggle into the United States cattle from Mexico,
admission as exhibits of brands cut from the cattle to establish original title in the Mexican
owner, possession by defendants in corroboration of the allegation and they had been stolen or
smuggled was proper as essential in the identification of the cattle seized. Babb v. U.S., C.A.5
(Tex.) 1954, 210 F.2d 473. Criminal Law
404.40
In prosecution for smuggling and concealing alcohol and for conspiracy to do so, evidence of
landing of certain alcohol from vessel which was interrupted by Treasury agents while it was in
progress and which developed into a shooting affray was admissible as being in execution of the
conspiracy, as against contention that the evidence was likely to divert jury's mind from the
crime to one of its distracting incidents. U S v. Nardone, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1939, 106 F.2d 41,
certiorari granted 60 S.Ct. 103, 308 U.S. 539, 84 L.Ed. 454, reversed on other grounds 60 S.Ct.
266, 308 U.S. 338, 84 L.Ed. 307. Conspiracy
46; Customs Duties
134
In prosecution for smuggling and concealing alcohol and for conspiracy to do so, testimony of
sailor that wireless operator on rum-running vessel showed sailor a list of owners of the vessel,
which included name of an accused, was admissible where evidence indicated that the
declaration of the wireless operator was probably a part of his duty inasmuch as he was
employed to keep in touch with owners ashore and advise them of any troubles that might arise,
notwithstanding fact that ordinarily only the master would be authorized to disclose such
information. U.S. v. Nardone, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1939, 106 F.2d 41, certiorari granted 60 S.Ct.
103, 308 U.S. 539, 84 L.Ed. 454, reversed 60 S.Ct. 266, 308 U.S. 338, 84 L.Ed. 307. Criminal
Law
423(7)
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 66
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
In prosecution for conspiracy to import alcohol, telegrams exchanged between defendant and
Cuban distillery referring to purchases of alcohol, loading, embarking, and movement of ships,
and remittances of money, were admissible, where evidence showed that they were sent and
received for and on behalf of defendant. Wood v. U. S., C.C.A.5 (La.) 1936, 84 F.2d 749,
certiorari denied 57 S.Ct. 116, 299 U.S. 589, 81 L.Ed. 434, rehearing denied 57 S.Ct. 230, 299
U.S. 623, 81 L.Ed. 458. Criminal Law
433
Testimony, in trial for importing narcotics, that unknown person asked over telephone for goods
and said he would come or send for papers was admissible, if speaker was defendant's
confederate or if speaker was acting on his own account. U.S. v. Frankel, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1933,
65 F.2d 285, certiorari denied 54 S.Ct. 119, 290 U.S. 682, 78 L.Ed. 588. Criminal Law
386
In prosecution for conspiracies to violate former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section], overt
acts, if proved, might properly be considered on question whether conspiracies existed. Rich v.
U.S., C.C.A.1 (Me.) 1933, 62 F.2d 638, certiorari denied 53 S.Ct. 655, 289 U.S. 735, 77 L.Ed.
1483. Conspiracy
46
Deputy's testimony as to what occurred after he had seized load of liquor under sheriff's
instructions was properly excluded as too remote in prosecution of sheriff for conspiracy to
smuggle liquor into United States. Clark v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (Ga.) 1932, 61 F.2d 409. Conspiracy
45
Admission of testimony of express company's driver relating to circumstances surrounding
delivery of liquor was not error. Shore v. U.S., App.D.C.1932, 56 F.2d 490, 61 App.D.C. 18,
certiorari denied 52 S.Ct. 408, 285 U.S. 552, 76 L.Ed. 942. Customs Duties
134
In prosecution for offenses involving smuggling of liquor, documentary evidence consisting of
book account against defendant for gasoline and copies of telegrams addressed to defendant were
admissible. Curtis v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (Ga.) 1930, 38 F.2d 450, certiorari denied 50 S.Ct. 467, 281
U.S. 768, 74 L.Ed. 1175. Criminal Law
434
Evidence tending to show entire conspiracy of smuggling liquor, only part of which was charged
in indictment, was admissible. Schouweiler v. U.S., C.C.A.9 (Cal.) 1928, 27 F.2d 515.
Conspiracy
43(12)
Map identified by witnesses, with notations of places thereon, was properly received in evidence.
West v. U S, C.C.A.8 (N.M.) 1926, 15 F.2d 916. Criminal Law
437
Customs official has no right, in prosecution for receiving, transporting, and selling goods
imported without payment of duty, to testify as to result of investigation leading to prosecution.
Porto Rico Drug Co. v. U.S., C.C.A.1 (Puerto Rico) 1926, 15 F.2d 339.
Testimony by Assistant Collector of Customs as to inferences grounded on information obtained
during investigation was erroneously admitted in prosecution for receiving goods imported
without paying duty. Porto Rico Drug Co. v. U.S., C.C.A.1 (Puerto Rico) 1926, 15 F.2d 339.
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 67
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
Customs Duties
134
In prosecution for conspiracy to violate former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] by
unlawfully importing liquor, where prima facie showing of conspiracy was made, there was no
error in receiving in evidence logs of British vessel seized. Ford v. U.S., C.C.A.9 (Cal.) 1926, 10
F.2d 339, certiorari granted 46 S.Ct. 475, 271 U.S. 652, 70 L.Ed. 1133, affirmed 47 S.Ct. 531,
273 U.S. 593, 71 L.Ed. 793. Criminal Law
423(1)
155. ---- Admissions or confessions, admissibility of evidence, evidence and witnesses
Where defendant's automobile keys were taken from her at primary inspection area at port of
entry when officer found 3,600 Wobe-mugos laetrile capsules in trunk of automobile and
defendant was directed to wait in secondary inspection area, and during questioning at the
secondary inspection office only an administrative seizure was taking place and defendant was
told she could leave, the interrogation was not custodial in nature and agent's testimony was not
inadmissible in prosecution for smuggling by reason of agent's failure to warn defendant of her
rights. U. S. v. Luther, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1975, 521 F.2d 408. Criminal Law
412.1(2)
In determining whether defendant was in custody at time she was questioned by customs agent at
secondary inspection area, court would not consider agent's belated intent to arrest defendant
when agent learned the next day that the undeclared merchandise possessed by defendant was
worth $1200. U. S. v. Luther, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1975, 521 F.2d 408. Criminal Law
412.1(2)
Defendant's admissions as to prior arrests were properly not offered by the government. Klepper
v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1964, 331 F.2d 694. Criminal Law
369.1
In prosecutions for conspiracy to smuggle psittacine birds into United States, for smuggling such
birds into United States, and for receiving, concealing and transporting such birds, recordings of
testimony recorded, subsequently to termination of conspiracy and other statements of
defendants were admissible as admissions against interest where offered only against defendant
making such admission. Murray v. U.S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1957, 250 F.2d 489, certiorari denied 78
S.Ct. 1375, 357 U.S. 932, 2 L.Ed.2d 1373. Criminal Law
406(1); Criminal Law
673(4)
156. ---- Best evidence rule, admissibility of evidence, evidence and witnesses
In prosecution for violating former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] and § 483 [now 1595a]
of Title 19, and for conspiring to violate such sections, photostatic copies of defendant's bank
statements showing $15,000 withdrawal on February 13, 1940, were admissible to corroborate
testimony of witness that in early February, 1940, defendant met witness at bank and handed him
$15,000 in cash, and the use of the photostatic copies was not excluded by the "best evidence"
rule, where contents of statements were not questioned. U.S. v. Kushner, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1943,
135 F.2d 668, certiorari denied 63 S.Ct. 1449, 320 U.S. 212, 87 L.Ed. 1850, rehearing denied 64
S.Ct. 32, 320 U.S. 808, 88 L.Ed. 488. Criminal Law
398(2)
Permitting inspector of customs to testify that custom house records disclosed no permit to
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 68
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
import liquor was not error as against objection that records were best evidence. Shore v. U.S.,
App.D.C.1932, 56 F.2d 490, 61 App.D.C. 18, certiorari denied 52 S.Ct. 408, 285 U.S. 552, 76
L.Ed. 942. Criminal Law
400(3)
Secondary evidence of contents of checks offered as bribe to officers making arrest was
competent, where accused retained checks. Madden v. U.S., C.C.A.9 (Cal.) 1927, 20 F.2d 289,
certiorari denied 48 S.Ct. 116, 275 U.S. 554, 72 L.Ed. 423. Criminal Law
398(1); Criminal
Law
402(1)
157. ---- Codefendant's statements, admissibility of evidence, evidence and witnesses
Coconspirator's statement at border crossing that neither he nor defendant passenger had
anything to declare on their entry from Canada was admissible in prosecution of passenger for
smuggling goods and conspiring to do so. U. S. v. Magee, C.A.6 (Mich.) 1978, 586 F.2d 636,
certiorari denied 99 S.Ct. 1517, 440 U.S. 966, 59 L.Ed.2d 782. Criminal Law
422(1)
Testimony of codefendant received without objection on examination by government, after
defendant had opened door by questioning government witness respecting other statements made
by codefendant to that witness, was properly admitted. U. S. v. Auclair, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1969, 420
F.2d 486. Criminal Law
698(1)
In view of detailed nature of defendant's admitted confession relating to smuggling of
marihuana, amphetamine and cyclopal tablets into United States after he had been warned of
constitutional rights by officer whose search of vehicle disclosed the narcotics, admission of
codefendant's confession in joint trial was harmless error with respect to defendant who did not
object to the admission of codefendant's confession and who presented no defense. Clark v. U.
S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1969, 412 F.2d 491, certiorari denied 90 S.Ct. 246, 396 U.S. 919, 24 L.Ed.2d
199. Criminal Law
1169.12
158. ---- Fruits of search and seizure, admissibility of evidence, evidence and witnesses
Where defendants in panel truck containing cases of various liquors were within class of
individuals subject to border search, customs agents had reasonable suspicion that defendants
were in possession of unlawfully imported merchandise and search was conducted within border
area, liquor seized during border search could be used as evidence despite defendants' claim that
there was no evidence that vessel from which cases of liquor were unloaded onto truck crossed
an international boundary on dates in question. U. S. v. Hill, C.A.5 (Fla.) 1970, 430 F.2d 129.
Criminal Law
394.5(4)
In prosecution of defendant for conspiring to smuggle amphetamine tablets into the United
States, admission into evidence of amphetamine tablets found in defendant's automobile in
Mexico was proper notwithstanding that Mexican police, who were not acting at instigation of
United States customs and narcotics officials, had not procured a warrant for defendant's arrest or
for search of his automobile. Brulay v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1967, 383 F.2d 345, certiorari denied
88 S.Ct. 469, 389 U.S. 986, 19 L.Ed.2d 478. Criminal Law
394.2(2)
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 69
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
Evidence provided by opening of packages by airline employee would be excludable in
prosecution for smuggling and conspiracy, even if employee had not acted solely to satisfy
government's interest in viewing contents of packages but had instead initiated and participated
in search for reasons contemplated by inspection clause in airline's tariffs, where customs agents
joined actively in the search, which made it a joint operation the effect of which would be same
as though government agents had engaged in the undertaking as one exclusively their own.
Corngold v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1966, 367 F.2d 1. Criminal Law
394.2(1)
Court properly admitted articles seized by government, pursuant to search warrant, from home of
defendant charged with conspiracy and smuggling in relation to alleged plot to blow up Statue of
Liberty, where materials seized were not intended for use on Statue of Liberty but were relevant
to the conspiracy. U. S. v. Bowe, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1966, 360 F.2d 1, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 401,
385 U.S. 961, 17 L.Ed.2d 306, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 779, 385 U.S. 1042, 17 L.Ed.2d 686,
rehearing denied 87 S.Ct. 1040, 386 U.S. 969, 18 L.Ed.2d 127. Criminal Law
394.4(5.1)
Evidence established that search of automobile was without probable cause as respected
admissibility of evidence secured thereby. Carr v. U.S., C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1932, 59 F.2d 991.
Criminal Law
394.6(4)
Admission of evidence obtained by illegal search and seizure, through officials of United States
acting under color of their office, violated defendant's constitutional rights. Lee v. U S, C.C.A.1
(Mass.) 1926, 14 F.2d 400, certiorari granted 47 S.Ct. 336, 273 U.S. 686, 71 L.Ed. 840, reversed
on other grounds 47 S.Ct. 746, 274 U.S. 559, 71 L.Ed. 1202. Criminal Law
393(1)
Customs agents who made extensive search of vehicle and found eight marijuana seeds and ten
valium tablets did not have authority to seize vehicle, and evidence found in further search of
vehicle conducted two days after seizure was not admissible in prosecution of defendant on
charge of smuggling. U. S. v. Brodzik, W.D.N.Y.1973, 366 F.Supp. 295. Criminal Law
394.4(12); Customs Duties
126(9.1)
159. ---- Hearsay, admissibility of evidence, evidence and witnesses
Testimony of defendant, charged with smuggling of merchandise which should have been
invoiced, that occupant of automobile which defendant had driven across border had told
defendant that she had put the items found by agents in the automobile tire was not admissible as
an exception to hearsay rule on ground that such occupant's declarations had been against her
penal interests. Scolari v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1969, 406 F.2d 563, certiorari denied 89 S.Ct. 2140,
395 U.S. 981, 23 L.Ed.2d 769. Criminal Law
417(15)
Testimony of immigration inspector and customs inspector that automobile, which entered
United States from Mexico, and which contained marihuana and switchblade knives, had a
license number similar to, but not identical with, license number which was on "lookout" list was
not hearsay; and testimony was relevant to explain why automobile was pulled over for further
customs inspection. Craft v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1968, 403 F.2d 360. Criminal Law
419(3)
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 70
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
In prosecution for conspiracy to import alcohol, books kept by interpreter who translated code
messages exchanged between defendant and Cuban distillery was not inadmissible as hearsay,
where based upon letters sent by distillery in furtherance of conspiracy, notifying interpreter that
shipments of alcohol had been made in accordance with orders given by defendant through
interpreter, where letters had been destroyed, rendering secondary evidence of their contents the
best evidence obtainable. Wood v. U. S., C.C.A.5 (La.) 1936, 84 F.2d 749, certiorari denied 57
S.Ct. 116, 299 U.S. 589, 81 L.Ed. 434, rehearing denied 57 S.Ct. 230, 299 U.S. 623, 81 L.Ed.
458. Criminal Law
434
In prosecution for conspiracy to violate former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section], testimony
that liquor was of foreign origin was not objectionable as hearsay and as going beyond witness'
knowledge. Rich v. U.S., C.C.A.1 (Me.) 1933, 62 F.2d 638, certiorari denied 53 S.Ct. 655, 289
U.S. 735, 77 L.Ed. 1483. Witnesses
37(1)
In prosecution for smuggling of marihuana, court could not accept the hearsay statement of a
professional informer, not present to confront defendants and to be subject to cross-examination,
as a substitute for proof of guilt. U.S. v. Beck, S.D.Tex.1956, 138 F.Supp. 756. Criminal Law
555
160. ---- Identification evidence, admissibility of evidence, evidence and witnesses
Fact that government witness believed that conversation he had concerning alleged illegal
importation of swordfish was with one defendant but that he could not say so with certainty did
not render his testimony incompetent and resolution of any inconsistency was for the jury. U. S.
v. Cranston, C.A.1 (Mass.) 1982, 686 F.2d 56. Criminal Law
383
That experienced immigration inspector five months prior to trial was shown two photographs of
defendant and identified defendant as driver of vehicle in which contraband was found did not
preclude inspector from identifying defendant at trial in absence of indication that he had been
subjected to suggestive influence or that his identification of photographs had been corrupted in
any manner. U. S. v. Kilgore, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1969, 418 F.2d 225. Criminal Law
339.10(2)
161. ---- Intent, admissibility of evidence, evidence and witnesses
Testimony regarding defendant's prior acts of possession and failure to comply with
requirements regarding protected species was admissible to show defendant's knowledge and
intent, in prosecution for knowingly submitting false reports and knowingly transporting and
importing endangered species in violation of law; defendant failed to respond to prosecution's
motion in limine, limiting instruction was given, and three-year span between acts was
sufficiently close to be relevant. U.S. v. Kuipers, C.A.7 (Ill.) 1995, 49 F.3d 1254. Criminal Law
370; Criminal Law
371(1); Criminal Law
673(5)
In a prosecution for smuggling and transportation of smuggled goods after importation,
testimony directed to showing that the goods found in defendant's possession were to be used as
a part of a fraudulent scheme, was admissible, within the discretion of the court, to show
defendant's motive. Huff v. U.S., C.A.5 (Tex.) 1959, 273 F.2d 56. Criminal Law
371(12)
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 71
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
162. ---- Knowledge, admissibility of evidence, evidence and witnesses
Evidence that defendant had a loaded gun when he was searched at Mexican border, that bullets
had been cut with a cross and that defendant stated "if you are going to shoot anybody you might
as well do a good job" was admissible in prosecution for illegally importing marijuana and for
concealing illegally imported marijuana, where defense was that defendant did not know that
marijuana was concealed in automobile in which he was crossing border. Klepper v. U. S., C.A.9
(Cal.) 1964, 331 F.2d 694. Controlled Substances
69
The defendant's statement that he had previously once used marijuana, a year before arrest, was
admissible in prosecution for illegally importing marijuana and for concealing illegally imported
marijuana, to prove that defendant knew what marijuana was. Klepper v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.)
1964, 331 F.2d 694. Controlled Substances
69
It was not error, in prosecution for illegally importing marijuana and for concealing illegally
imported marijuana, to refuse to admit evidence offered from father of defendant, upon whom
was found a gun when he was searched at Mexican border, that defendant had had a thorough
training in firearms and their use and had owned many guns. Klepper v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.)
1964, 331 F.2d 694. Criminal Law
338(1)
163. ---- Opinion evidence, admissibility of evidence, evidence and witnesses
In prosecution for smuggling certain jewelry or merchandise into the United States, and for
facilitating the transportation and concealment thereof after importation, action of court in
permitting a government witness to testify that it was his opinion, that under this construction
and interpretation of the customs laws, statutes, rules and regulations, the jewelry found in the
possession of defendant was of a commercial nature, rather than personal effects, exempt from
duty, was prejudicial error, in view of fact the government was not authorized in such manner to
substitute its witness for the court in charging the jury as to applicable law, nor was his opinion
and conclusion admissible as to one of the ultimate facts to be decided by the jury. Huff v. U.S.,
C.A.5 (Tex.) 1959, 273 F.2d 56. Criminal Law
448(16); Criminal Law
1169.9
164. ---- Other offenses, admissibility of evidence, evidence and witnesses
In prosecution for aiding and abetting illegal importation of marihuana, and for concealment and
transportation of illegally imported marihuana, and for illegal importation of switchblade knives,
testimony of witness that defendant, who had gone to Mexico to obtain benzedrine, had
previously sold benzedrine to witness, was admissible to show intent to defraud. Craft v. U. S.,
C.A.9 (Cal.) 1968, 403 F.2d 360. Criminal Law
371(1)
In prosecution for aiding and abetting illegal importation of marihuana, and for concealment and
transportation of illegally imported marihuana, and for illegal importation of switchblade knives,
evidence that defendant had previously used marihuana was admissible to show inclination of
defendant to procure marihuana. Craft v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1968, 403 F.2d 360. Criminal Law
371(12)
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 72
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
In prosecution for aiding and abetting illegal importation of marihuana, and for concealment and
transportation of illegally imported marihuana, and for illegal importation of switchblade knives,
testimony of witness that on release of defendant from jail he removed some pills from his coat
and swallowed them and commented on failure of customs officers to discover them was
properly admitted to show attempt to evade customs laws. Craft v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1968, 403
F.2d 360. Criminal Law
371(1)
Evidence that defendant charged with unlawfully importing marijuana and with importation of
amphetamine tablets without presenting them to customs officer had in one of his pockets packet
of cigarette papers in which were bits of marijuana was admissible to show knowledge and intent
and not objectionable on theory that it showed other misconduct. Deck v. U. S., C.A.9 (Ariz.)
1968, 395 F.2d 89. Criminal Law
370; Criminal Law
371(1)
165. ---- Photographs, admissibility of evidence, evidence and witnesses
Photographs of scene of seizure of liquor was competent against defendant not directly
identified. Madden v. U.S., C.C.A.9 (Cal.) 1927, 20 F.2d 289, certiorari denied 48 S.Ct. 116,
275 U.S. 554, 72 L.Ed. 423. Criminal Law
438(4)
166. Suppression of evidence, evidence and witnesses
Where claims agents had nothing more than mere suspicion to connect any person, including
defendant, with alleged smuggling of marijuana from Mexico to United States, and at no time
until defendant was arrested and searched without a warrant was identity of defendant known,
arrest and search of defendant 20 miles from border were invalid, and his motion to suppress
evidence should have been granted in marijuana case. U. S. v. Garcia, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1969, 415
F.2d 1141. Arrest
63.4(3); Arrest
71.1(7); Criminal Law
394.4(13)
Defendant charged with smuggling had standing to move to suppress evidence seized in vehicle
in which he was riding. U. S. v. Brodzik, W.D.N.Y.1973, 366 F.Supp. 295. Criminal Law
394.5(2)
Evidence established that initial search of automobile trunk at pier by subordinate customs
investigator was capricious act and illegal, motivated by order of superior to check milk box
being loaded into trunk, and that second search by superior official, in which 12 additional
bottles were found, was prompted by unlawfully obtained evidence and itself illegal, in
proceeding on application to suppress allegedly illegally seized liquor, in prosecution for illegal
importation of liquor on which excise tax had not been paid. U. S. v. Duffy, S.D.N.Y.1965, 250
F.Supp. 900. Criminal Law
394.6(4)
A motion to suppress evidentiary use and for return of unsymboled Swiss watch movements
allegedly smuggled into the United States in violation of this section would be denied under
evidence that during brief period of lawful detention by customs agents defendant knowingly and
willingly consented to the "search" that thereupon followed. U. S. v. Katz, S.D.N.Y.1965, 238
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 73
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
F.Supp. 689. Criminal Law
394.6(4); Customs Duties
131
Under evidence, independent of any arrest, customs agents had sufficient and proper reasons to
stop and question defendant who was carrying bags containing unsymboled Swiss watch
movements, in determining whether such movements were to be suppressed in prosecution for
smuggling goods into the United States. U. S. v. Katz, S.D.N.Y.1965, 238 F.Supp. 689.
Customs Duties
126(3.1)
167. Corroboration of evidence, evidence and witnesses
Evidence was sufficient to indicate that defendant's incriminating statements were sufficiently
corroborated to sustain conviction for conspiring to smuggle amphetamine tablets into the United
States. Brulay v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1967, 383 F.2d 345, certiorari denied 88 S.Ct. 469, 389 U.S.
986, 19 L.Ed.2d 478. Criminal Law
414
In prosecution for conspiracy to import alcohol, records of telephone calls from rooms and
offices occupied by defendant were admissible to show constant communication between
defendant and coconspirators in corroboration of other testimony, although nature of
conversations was not shown. Wood v. U. S., C.C.A.5 (La.) 1936, 84 F.2d 749, certiorari denied
57 S.Ct. 116, 299 U.S. 589, 81 L.Ed. 434, rehearing denied 57 S.Ct. 230, 299 U.S. 623, 81 L.Ed.
458. Criminal Law
436(7)
168. Inferences, evidence and witnesses
From fact that defendant was driving car which had smuggled merchandise in the trunk, jury
could reasonably infer that defendant knew of the trunk's contents. U. S. v. Westover, C.A.9
(Cal.) 1975, 511 F.2d 1154, certiorari denied 95 S.Ct. 2633, 422 U.S. 1009, 45 L.Ed.2d 673.
Customs Duties
134
Although a reasonable hypothesis that watches may have been legally introduced into American
commerce could be theorized from facts adduced in prosecution for concealing, selling and
facilitating transportation of illegally imported Swiss watch movements, such an inference did
not foreclose jury from reaching opposite conclusion. U. S. v. Grunberger, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1970,
431 F.2d 1062. Customs Duties
134
Where government proof substantiated beyond a reasonable doubt that perfume accused sought
to sell had been recently smuggled and that accused actually knew of his own personal
knowledge that the perfume had been illegally imported, accused's conviction was not subject to
attack on theory that statutorily created inference with respect to smuggled goods permitted trier
of fact to make irrational inference that from accused's possession of smuggled perfume it was
inferable that he knew it to have been smuggled. U. S. v. Matalon, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1970, 425 F.2d
70, certiorari denied 91 S.Ct. 82, 400 U.S. 841, 27 L.Ed.2d 76. Customs Duties
134
In prosecution for conspiracy to violate former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] and
National Prohibition Act, former § 1 et seq. of Title 27, evidence that liquors landed in the
secrecy of night were intoxicating and fit for beverage, was unnecessary, such inference being
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 74
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
warranted by attendant circumstances. McDonnell v. U.S., C.C.A.1 (Mass.) 1927, 19 F.2d 801,
certiorari denied 48 S.Ct. 114, 275 U.S. 551, 72 L.Ed. 421.
169. Weight and sufficiency of evidence, evidence and witnesses--Generally
Labels on containers of intoxicating liquor have little or no tendency to prove kind of liquor or
place of manufacture, in absence of evidence tending to prove labels genuine. Kennedy v. U.S.,
C.C.A.9 (Mont.) 1930, 44 F.2d 131. Customs Duties
134
Circumstantial evidence, to sustain conviction, must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis
than that of guilt. Sherman v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (Tex.) 1920, 268 F. 516. Criminal Law
552(3)
170. ---- Aiding and abetting, weight and sufficiency of evidence, evidence and witnesses
Evidence sustained conviction for facilitating transportation and concealment of whisky as
principal and as aiding and abetting. Gillespie v. U.S., C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1926, 13 F.2d 736,
certiorari denied 47 S.Ct. 240, 273 U.S. 730, 71 L.Ed. 863. Customs Duties
134
171. ---- Conspiracy, weight and sufficiency of evidence, evidence and witnesses
Evidence, in case in which coconspirator's guilty pleas were not introduced into evidence, was
insufficient to support finding of knowing illegal importation by the alleged coconspirators, and
thus defendant could not be convicted of conspiring to commit the substantive offense, though
there was sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction of the substantive offense. U. S. v. Molt,
C.A.3 (Pa.) 1980, 615 F.2d 141. Conspiracy
47(3.1)
Evidence that one defendant both received and shipped packages of Laetrile from Mexico into
the United States with false identifying information, that one of the couriers was paid in cash by
the defendant, that another defendant told an Internal Revenue Service agent that two checks
made out to "cash" were used to pay for the smuggling of Laetrile, that almost all of the Laetrile
used by the defendant physician in the United States was manufactured in a particular plant in
Mexico, that the physician's account at that plant was personally handled by one of the
defendants, and that it was not possible to get Laetrile across the border without smuggling it
was sufficient to sustain defendants' convictions for conspiracy to smuggle Laetrile into the
country. U. S. v. Richardson, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1978, 588 F.2d 1235, certiorari denied 99 S.Ct. 1426,
440 U.S. 947, 59 L.Ed.2d 636, rehearing denied 99 S.Ct. 2064, 441 U.S. 937, 60 L.Ed.2d 667,
certiorari denied 99 S.Ct. 2049, 441 U.S. 931, 60 L.Ed.2d 658. Conspiracy
47(3.1)
Evidence was sufficient to sustain defendants' convictions for conspiracy to smuggle and import
merchandise illegally. U. S. v. Westover, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1975, 511 F.2d 1154, certiorari denied 95
S.Ct. 2633, 422 U.S. 1009, 45 L.Ed.2d 673. Conspiracy
47(3.1)
Evidence, including evidence concerning surveillance of automobile allegedly used to transport
amphetamine sulfate tablets and barbiturate capsules into the United States and evidence as to
ownership of automobile, was sufficient to show defendant's participation in conspiracy to
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 75
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
smuggle goods into the United States, concealment and transportation of amphetamine sulfate
tablets and barbiturate capsules and possession of stimulant or depressant drugs. Pederson v. U.
S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1968, 392 F.2d 41. Conspiracy
47(12); Customs Duties
134;
Controlled Substances
86
Evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction of defendant for conspiracy to commit an offense
against or to defraud United States and for receipt and concealment of merchandise brought into
the United States contrary to this section. Badon v. U.S., C.A.5 (La.) 1959, 269 F.2d 75,
certiorari denied 80 S.Ct. 199, 361 U.S. 894, 4 L.Ed.2d 152. Conspiracy
47(6); Customs
Duties
134
Evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction for conspiracy to smuggle, import, conceal, and
transport a snowmobile from Canada to United States. U.S. v. McKee, C.A.2 (Vt.) 1955, 220
F.2d 266. Conspiracy
47(11)
Evidence was insufficient to sustain conviction of yacht captain for conspiring with members of
crew and others to import intoxicating liquors without paying customs duties. U.S. v. Merrell,
C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1934, 73 F.2d 49, certiorari denied 55 S.Ct. 346, 293 U.S. 627, 79 L.Ed. 713.
Conspiracy
47(10)
Evidence sustained conviction for conspiring to smuggle intoxicating liquor into United States.
Davidson v. U.S., C.C.A.R.I., 63 F.2d 90. Davidson v. U.S., C.C.A.1 (R.I.) 1933, 63 F.2d 90.
Conspiracy
47(10)
Evidence was insufficient to sustain conviction for conspiracy to fraudulently and knowingly
facilitate transportation of merchandise imported into United States contrary to law. Enrique
Rivera v. U.S., C.C.A.1 (Puerto Rico) 1932, 57 F.2d 816. Conspiracy
47(4)
Evidence was insufficient to support conviction of conspiracy to possess, transport, and import
liquor as against defendant referred to as one employed to transport liquor in small boats from
ship to shore. Sugarman v. U.S., C.C.A.9 (Cal.) 1929, 35 F.2d 663, certiorari denied 50 S.Ct.
239, 281 U.S. 723, 74 L.Ed. 1141.
Evidence showing negotiations with officer of Coast Guard was sufficient to support conviction
of conspiracy to possess and transport liquor and to unlawfully import liquor. Sugarman v. U.S.,
C.C.A.9 (Cal.) 1929, 35 F.2d 663, certiorari denied 50 S.Ct. 239, 281 U.S. 723, 74 L.Ed. 1141.
Conspiracy
47(10)
Evidence warranted finding of conspiracy to violate former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this
section] and National Prohibition Act, former § 1 et seq. of Title 27, by transportation of liquor.
McDonnell v. U.S., C.C.A.1 (Mass.) 1927, 19 F.2d 801, certiorari denied 48 S.Ct. 114, 275 U.S.
551, 72 L.Ed. 421. Conspiracy
47
Evidence sustained conviction for conspiracy to illegally import, transport, and sell liquor.
Martin v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (Fla.) 1927, 17 F.2d 973, certiorari denied 48 S.Ct. 20, 275 U.S. 527, 72
L.Ed. 408. Conspiracy
47(10)
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 76
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
Evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction for conspiracy to sell unlawfully imported liquor.
Hartson v. U.S., C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1926, 14 F.2d 561. Conspiracy
47
Evidence was sufficient to show existence of conspiracy to import and possess liquor, and to
prove overt acts alleged at least one of which took place in the Northern District of California.
Ford v. U.S., C.C.A.9 (Cal.) 1926, 10 F.2d 339, certiorari granted 46 S.Ct. 475, 271 U.S. 652, 70
L.Ed. 1133, affirmed 47 S.Ct. 531, 273 U.S. 593, 71 L.Ed. 793. Conspiracy
47(10);
Criminal Law
564(1)
Evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for conspiracy to import and conceal liquors in
violation of the customs laws. Canada v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (Tex.) 1925, 5 F.2d 488. Conspiracy
47
Evidence warranted finding that cablegrams constituted overt acts committed in district of
prosecution for conspiracy to defraud United States by smuggling liquor into country. Horwitz
v. U S, C.C.A.1 (Mass.) 1925, 5 F.2d 129.
Evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy to import marijuana, attempted
smuggling of marijuana, and attempted importation of marijuana; defendant was the sole driver
and occupant of the truck that hauled the trailer containing marijuana, and defendant and coconspirator drove trailers that were each registered to the other and each fitted with a similar
hidden compartment containing marijuana. U.S. v. Huang, C.A.9 (Mont.) 2004, 87 Fed.Appx.
656, 2004 WL 232385, Unreported, appeal after new trial 2006 WL 529740. Conspiracy
47(12); Controlled Substances
86
172. ---- Importation contrary to law, weight and sufficiency of evidence, evidence and
witnesses
Convictions for violations regarding importation of endangered species and fraudulently and
knowingly importing endangered species contrary to law was supported by substantial evidence;
jury was entitled to believe testimony regarding defendant's hunting trip to Mexico for
endangered species and defendant's own admissions to Fish and Wildlife Service agent of
defendant's importation of skull of endangered species. U.S. v. Kuipers, C.A.7 (Ill.) 1995, 49
F.3d 1254. Environmental Law
756
Evidence that defendants' vessel containing marijuana was bound for United States berth and that
they were apprehended outside country was sufficient to show intent to import marijuana. U. S.
v. Peabody, C.A.5 (Fla.) 1980, 626 F.2d 1300. Controlled Substances
86
Chief government witness' testimony that defendant characterized watch movements as
"smuggled", and fact that the movements were wrapped in an illicit manner, when combined
with other circumstantial evidence such as surreptitious conduct of the parties, witness' past
dealings in smuggled watches, and relationship between defendant, a watchmaker, and witness,
was more than sufficient to show illegal importation. U. S. v. Weinstein, C.A.2 1971, 452 F.2d
704, certiorari denied 92 S.Ct. 1766, 406 U.S. 917, 32 L.Ed.2d 116. Customs Duties
134
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 77
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
Proof of agreement with Switzerland to report to Swiss New York Consulate all unmarked watch
movements, the instructions and practice of all customs offices to do so, and the certificate of
Swiss Consul as to lack of such report concerning watch movements in defendant's possession
was sufficient to support finding of unlawful importation of such movements. U. S. v. Blum,
C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1964, 329 F.2d 49, certiorari denied 84 S.Ct. 1920, 377 U.S. 993, 12 L.Ed.2d 1045.
Customs Duties
134
Evidence did not sustain conviction of importing and concealing bulk marihuana. Duran v. U.
S., C.A.5 (Tex.) 1956, 234 F.2d 932. Controlled Substances
86; Internal Revenue
5295
Evidence sustained convictions for importing marihuana into the United States, without having
paid tax as required by law, and for concealing the marihuana, knowing that it had been imported
into the United States contrary to law. Morales v. U.S., C.A.5 (Tex.) 1956, 228 F.2d 762.
Internal Revenue
5295; Controlled Substances
86
Importation of undeclared duty-free gold bullion into the United States did not sustain conviction
for violation of former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section]. U.S. v. Kushner, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.)
1943, 135 F.2d 668, certiorari denied 63 S.Ct. 1449, 320 U.S. 212, 87 L.Ed. 1850, rehearing
denied 64 S.Ct. 32, 320 U.S. 808, 88 L.Ed. 488. Customs Duties
125
Evidence was sufficient to connect six defendants with the illegal importation of alcohol into the
United States and with a scheme to import alcohol without the payment of duty thereon, and
hence was sufficient to sustain convictions for conspiring to import alcohol unlawfully into the
United States and for unlawfully importing alcohol into the United States. U.S. v. Gerke,
C.C.A.3 (N.J.) 1942, 125 F.2d 243, certiorari denied 62 S.Ct. 1033, 316 U.S. 667, 86 L.Ed. 1742.
Conspiracy
47(10)
Evidence sustained conviction for importing and conspiring to import heroin and morphine. U.S.
v. Frankel, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1933, 65 F.2d 285, certiorari denied 54 S.Ct. 119, 290 U.S. 682, 78
L.Ed. 588. Conspiracy
47(12)
Evidence not showing liquor had been actually brought into United States from without was
insufficient to support conviction for unlawful importation of liquor. Tomplain v. U.S., C.C.A.5
(La.) 1930, 42 F.2d 205. Customs Duties
134
Evidence showing absence of bona fide intent to make entry and pay duties when entering
borders of United States was sufficient to show unlawful importation. Tomplain v. U.S.,
C.C.A.5 (La.) 1930, 42 F.2d 203, certiorari denied 51 S.Ct. 89, 282 U.S. 886, 75 L.Ed. 781.
Customs Duties
134
Evidence was sufficient to support conviction for importing merchandise without paying taxes
and concealing liquors on which revenue taxes were not paid. Snow v. U.S., C.C.A.4 (N.C.)
1928, 28 F.2d 704. Customs Duties
134
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 78
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
The fact that alleged Mexican intoxicating liquor was found in defendant's possession, and he
admitted its ownership, was not sufficient to show that the liquor was wrongfully imported at a
time when importation was unlawful. Sherman v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (Tex.) 1920, 268 F. 516.
Testimony by a witness that he saw the rope which he had helped steal from the ship in a cart in
the control of defendant was sufficient to identify the rope as that stolen and which was landed
contrary to law. Goldman v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (La.) 1920, 263 F. 340. Customs Duties
134
173. ---- Intent, weight and sufficiency of evidence, evidence and witnesses
Even if marijuana had originated in United States, evidence that defendants' vessel containing
marijuana was bound for a United States berth and that defendants were apprehended outside
country would be sufficient to sustain finding of intent to import marijuana by fact that it was
meant to reenter the United States from international waters. U. S. v. Peabody, C.A.5 (Fla.)
1980, 626 F.2d 1300. Controlled Substances
86
The finding in an automobile in this country of bottled "export" American whisky from Canada
in transportation without a permit was sufficient to prove a charge that it was being transported
with intent to defraud the United States of import and other taxes due thereon. U.S. v. One
Buick Roadster, D.C.Mont.1922, 280 F. 517. Customs Duties
134
In prosecution for fraudulently and knowingly importing and bringing into the United States
certain merchandise contrary to law, evidence was insufficient to show crime had been
committed, in view of fact defendant, who had merchandise in question in his automobile, drove
over the international border into Mexico, and then returned with the merchandise in his
automobile, without anything having been done to the merchandise in Mexico, did not have
requisite specific intent to commit the crime of unlawful importation. U. S. v. Claybourn,
S.D.Cal.1960, 180 F.Supp. 448. Customs Duties
134
To support indictment under former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] there had to be
sufficient evidence of a criminal intent. 1900, 23 Op.Atty.Gen. 64.
174. ---- Knowledge, weight and sufficiency of evidence, evidence and witnesses
Testimony of couriers and evidence of defendant's telephone records was sufficient to show that
he knew that Laetrile which he was receiving had been illegally smuggled into the country. U. S.
v. Richardson, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1978, 588 F.2d 1235, certiorari denied 99 S.Ct. 1426, 440 U.S. 947,
59 L.Ed.2d 636, rehearing denied 99 S.Ct. 2064, 441 U.S. 937, 60 L.Ed.2d 667, certiorari denied
99 S.Ct. 2049, 441 U.S. 931, 60 L.Ed.2d 658. Customs Duties
134
Evidence in prosecution for concealing and transporting illegally imported marihuana and
seconal pills was sufficient to support implied finding that defendant knew that contraband had
been illegally imported. U. S. v. Briseno-Hernandez, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1971, 441 F.2d 1094.
Controlled Substances
86
Evidence that, when defendant's automobile was searched 65 miles north of the Mexican border,
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 79
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
boxes of sodium seconal capsules were found, of which four boxes were labeled "Mexico, D.F."
and one was labeled "Made in USA, Green Bay, Wisconsin", did not establish that capsules had
been illegally imported or that defendant knew of illegal importation which were essential
elements of crime of facilitating transportation and concealment of illegally imported
merchandise. U. S. v. Meyer, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1970, 432 F.2d 1000. Controlled Substances
86
Evidence supported finding that defendants charged with concealing, selling and facilitating
transportation of LSD which they knew had been imported into United States contrary to law had
acted knowingly. Roseman v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1966, 364 F.2d 18, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct.
879, 386 U.S. 918, 17 L.Ed.2d 789, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 880, 386 U.S. 918, 17 L.Ed.2d
789. Customs Duties
134; Controlled Substances
86
Evidence established that merchandise had been smuggled into United States with knowledge on
part of defendants. U. S. v. Quong, C.A.6 (Tenn.) 1962, 303 F.2d 499, certiorari denied 83 S.Ct.
119, 371 U.S. 863, 9 L.Ed.2d 100. Customs Duties
134
Defendant found in possession of safety fuse and approximately one pound of explosive
materials containing pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) after having arrived in United States
from England could not be charged with knowingly transporting and shipping explosive material
in foreign commerce and importing that explosive material into the United States; defendant's
conduct fell within statutory exception for aspects of transportation of explosive materials via air
that were regulated by the United States Department of Transportation (DOT). U.S. v.
Petrykievicz, W.D.Wash.1992, 809 F.Supp. 794. Explosives
4
175. ---- Possession of goods, weight and sufficiency of evidence, evidence and witnesses
Claimants work of art subject to forfeiture failed to establish facially colorable ownership
interest of either legal or equitable nature sufficient to confer standing, as mere physical
possession of object unaccompanied by factual allegations sufficient to raise serious question
about intent of brokerage contract between claimant and owner of work was insufficient. U.S. v.
One 18th Century Colombian Monstrance, C.A.5 (Tex.) 1986, 802 F.2d 837. Forfeitures
5
Proof, placing forbidden merchandise in possession of defendants was sufficient, at least in
absence of explanation, to warrant conviction under this section. U. S. v. Quong, C.A.6 (Tenn.)
1962, 303 F.2d 499, certiorari denied 83 S.Ct. 119, 371 U.S. 863, 9 L.Ed.2d 100. Customs
Duties
134
Where defendant was charged with receipt and concealment of merchandise brought into United
States contrary to this section, showing that defendant took actual possession of contraband
whisky was alone sufficient to support conviction unless explained to satisfaction of jury. Badon
v. U.S., C.A.5 (La.) 1959, 269 F.2d 75, certiorari denied 80 S.Ct. 199, 361 U.S. 894, 4 L.Ed.2d
152. Customs Duties
134
This section providing that proof of defendant's possession of such goods, shall be deemed
evidence sufficient to authorize conviction for violation of said sections forbidding smuggling,
"such goods" refer to smuggled goods. Wong Bing Nung v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1955, 221 F.2d
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 80
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
917. Customs Duties
134
Defendant's guilt of possessing and transporting liquor was not prima facie evidence of unlawful
importation. Kennedy v. U.S., C.C.A.9 (Mont.) 1930, 44 F.2d 131. Customs Duties
134
Possession of goods on which customs duties were not paid is sufficient to authorize conviction
for violating customs laws, unless defendant can explain possession to jury's satisfaction.
Tomplain v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (La.) 1930, 42 F.2d 203, certiorari denied 51 S.Ct. 89, 282 U.S. 886,
75 L.Ed. 781. Customs Duties
134
In prosecution for concealment and transportation of liquor imported into the United States
without compliance with law, evidence sustained conviction, in view of provision of Act Sept.
21, 1922, c. 356, § 593, 42 Stat. 982, making unexplained possession of unlawfully imported
goods sufficient evidence to authorize conviction. Nounes v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (Tex.) 1925, 4 F.2d
833, certiorari denied 45 S.Ct. 513, 268 U.S. 695, 69 L.Ed. 1162.
Possession by defendant of cocaine in the original sealed bottles, marked "manufactured in
Germany", unless explained to the satisfaction of the jury, had been determined to be sufficient
to authorize his conviction under former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] for having
received it knowing it to have been imported contrary to law. Rosso v. U.S., C.C.A.3 (N.J.)
1924, 1 F.2d 717.
Without knowledge, there can be no "possession" of smuggled goods within meaning of this
section providing that proof of "possession" of smuggled goods, unless explained to the
satisfaction of the jury, shall be deemed evidence sufficient to authorize conviction. U.S. v.
Tijerina, S.D.Tex.1956, 138 F.Supp. 759. Customs Duties
134
Though "possession" within meaning of this section providing that proof of "possession" of
smuggled goods, unless explained to satisfaction of jury, shall be deemed evidence sufficient to
authorize conviction, may be shown by circumstances, and guilty knowledge may be inferred
from possession, fact of possession first must be shown. U.S. v. Tijerina, S.D.Tex.1956, 138
F.Supp. 759. Customs Duties
134
Unexplained possession of contraband goods is sufficient to authorize conviction for smuggling
or facilitating clandestine importations. U S v. Stein, W.D.N.Y.1943, 53 F.Supp. 911. Customs
Duties
134
Possession of goods was not sufficient to authorize conviction until it was otherwise proved that
they were imported contrary to law. U.S. v. Lot of Jewelry, C.C.N.Y.1875, 26 F.Cas. 994, No.
15626.
176. ---- Receiving, concealing, etc., contraband, weight and sufficiency of evidence, evidence
and witnesses
In prosecution for knowingly facilitating transportation or concealment of illegally imported
merchandise, brought against Reserve First Sergeant who had been designated Customs
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 81
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
Inspector with respect to transport of equipment back to United States following the Gulf War,
evidence was sufficient to support finding that the Army did not declare Iraqi weapons within
container which defendant arranged to be shipped to his reserve unit's home post, in light of fact
that none of the documents referencing the container disclosed that the Iraqi weapons were
stored therein, and one document was stamped with certification that declared to Customs
Service that all items covered by that document were produced or manufactured in the United
States. U.S. v. Dodd, C.A.1 (Mass.) 1995, 43 F.3d 759. Customs Duties
134
Evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction of receiving merchandise after importation into this
country without customs inspection and declaration knowing of such illegal importation. U. S. v.
Guest, C.A.1 (Mass.) 1975, 514 F.2d 777. Customs Duties
134
Evidence supported finding that defendants charged with transportation and sale of LSD which
had been imported contrary to law and with various sections of Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act, § 301 et seq, of Title 21, had brought the alleged LSD from Canada into the
United States. Roseman v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1966, 364 F.2d 18, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 879,
386 U.S. 918, 17 L.Ed.2d 789, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 880, 386 U.S. 918, 17 L.Ed.2d 789.
Customs Duties
134; Health
989; Controlled Substances
86
Evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction for knowingly dealing in illegally imported hog
bristles. U. S. v. Goldstein, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1963, 323 F.2d 753, certiorari denied 84 S.Ct. 677, 376
U.S. 920, 11 L.Ed.2d 615. Customs Duties
134
Where government, in prosecution for knowingly concealing and facilitating transportation and
concealment after importation of certain jewelry or merchandise knowing the same to have been
imported into the United States contrary to law and without having been invoiced as required by
law, relied upon claimed violation of § 1484 of Title 19 requiring invoicing of such goods, but
government failed to prove a failure to make entry for the jewelry or merchandise described in
the indictment within a five-day period after defendant's entry into the United States, as required
by such section, evidence was insufficient to sustain conviction of defendant for violation of
such section. Huff v. U.S., C.A.5 (Tex.) 1959, 273 F.2d 56. Customs Duties
134
In prosecution for fraudulently and knowingly concealing and facilitating transportation of cattle
knowing they had been imported into United States without making entry thereof as required by
§ 1484 of Title 19 imposing duty on consignee of imported merchandise to make entry,
evidence was sufficient to sustain finding that defendant was consignee of cattle. Babb v. U.S.,
C.A.5 (Tex.) 1958, 252 F.2d 702, certiorari denied 78 S.Ct. 1137, 356 U.S. 974, 2 L.Ed.2d 1147.
Customs Duties
134
Evidence sustained convictions for purchase of wheat illegally imported. Kleven v. U.S., C.A.8
(N.D.) 1957, 240 F.2d 270. Customs Duties
134
Evidence showing that "buttons" of gold at time of seizure were found in box on which was
pasted an assay made in Canada and wrapped in Canadian papers and dry cleaner's jacket with
Canadian label was sufficient to sustain conviction of receiving, concealing, and facilitating
transportation of gold bullion knowing the same to have been imported contrary to law. U S v.
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 82
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
Minneci, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1944, 142 F.2d 428. Customs Duties
134
Evidence warranted conviction of yacht captain for facilitating concealment and transportation of
smuggled intoxicating liquors. U.S. v. Merrell, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1934, 73 F.2d 49, certiorari
denied 55 S.Ct. 346, 293 U.S. 627, 79 L.Ed. 713. Customs Duties
134
Evidence was sufficient to support conviction under count charging defendant with unlawfully
receiving and concealing liquor subject to customs duties. Shore v. U.S., App.D.C.1932, 56 F.2d
490, 61 App.D.C. 18, certiorari denied 52 S.Ct. 408, 285 U.S. 552, 76 L.Ed. 942. Customs
Duties
134
Proof that accused had liquor bearing foreign labels in an automobile within 100 miles from the
Canadian border was not sufficient to prove possession or transportation of liquor illegally
imported. Kennedy v. U.S., C.C.A.9 (Mont.) 1930, 44 F.2d 131.
Evidence tended to prove unlawful concealment, and facilitating transportation and concealment,
after importation of intoxicating liquors. Benson v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (Tex.) 1925, 10 F.2d 309.
Customs Duties
134
A judgment of conviction of a defendant, for knowlingly receiving and concealing goods
imported contrary to law, was not sustained, where there was no evidence whatever that the
goods in question were imported contrary to law. Shillitani v. U.S., C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1922, 279 F.
393. Customs Duties
134
Evidence supported conviction of supervisor at foreign airline's bonded warehouse, of receiving,
concealing, and selling Japanese watches knowing them to have been imported illegally, of
receiving the watches knowing them to have been removed unlawfully from bonded warehouse
and of receiving the watches knowing them to have been unlawfully removed from foreign
commerce. U. S. v. Romero, E.D.N.Y.1973, 363 F.Supp. 1235. Customs Duties
134;
Receiving Stolen Goods
8(3)
177. ---- Smuggling or clandestine introduction, weight and sufficiency of evidence, evidence
and witnesses
Evidence was sufficient to prove that the cigars seized from defendant came from Cuba, as
required to support conviction for smuggling Cuban cigars; the cigars themselves were submitted
to the jury, along with evidence of defendant's frequent trips to Cuba, and the cigars were
marked as having been made in Cuba. U.S. v. Connors, C.A.7 (Ill.) 2006, 441 F.3d 527.
Customs Duties
134
Testimony of customs inspector that at time of border crossing inspector had been satisfied that
immigration document presented by driver of car containing marijuana belonged to the driver
and that driver's license presented by driver belonged to the driver was sufficient to support
conviction for smuggling even though at trial, four years after the border crossing, inspector was
unable to make positive in-court identification of defendant as the driver. U. S. v. Meza-Arcadia,
C.A.9 (Cal.) 1972, 458 F.2d 31. Customs Duties
134
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 83
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
Evidence supported conviction for smuggling or clandestinely introducing marihuana and
merchandise into the United States. U. S. v. Littlepage, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1971, 450 F.2d 944.
Customs Duties
134
Evidence that defendant was passenger in car rented and driven by codefendant, that he appeared
tense and not at ease when car was stopped at border, and that search of car revealed substantial
amount of narcotics hidden under back seat was insufficient to sustain conviction for knowingly
smuggling merchandise into United States without having it invoiced. U. S. v. Bonds, C.A.9
(Cal.) 1970, 435 F.2d 164. Customs Duties
134; Controlled Substances
86
Testimony showing that defendant had agreed for compensation to provide a family group cover
for smuggling operation and had taken children on trip to Mexico and was in the automobile for
such purpose when stopped at border was, although conflicting, sufficient to sustain conviction
for smuggling marijuana. U. S. v. Auclair, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1969, 420 F.2d 486. Customs Duties
134; Controlled Substances
86
Evidence sustained finding that gold was willfully and knowingly smuggled into United States
with intent to defraud by defendant, who had brought gold shavings, as samplings, from gold
bars which he was investigating purchasing in Mexico for resale in United States, and who did
not declare such gold as required by law. U. S. v. Boggus, C.A.9 (Ariz.) 1969, 411 F.2d 110,
certiorari denied 90 S.Ct. 245, 396 U.S. 919, 24 L.Ed.2d 198. Customs Duties
134
Evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction for failure to present imported merchandise to
customs officials and of smuggling goods into the United States. O'Connell v. U.S., C.A.5
(Tex.) 1968, 402 F.2d 760. Customs Duties
134
Evidence was sufficient to support conviction for smuggling 30 pounds of marijuana into the
United States, concealing and transporting said marijuana within the United States and
smuggling two revolvers and certain ammunition into the United States. Spigner v. U. S., C.A.9
(Cal.) 1966, 369 F.2d 686, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 1165, 386 U.S. 971, 18 L.Ed.2d 131,
rehearing denied 87 S.Ct. 1372, 386 U.S. 1027, 18 L.Ed.2d 472. Customs Duties
134;
Controlled Substances
86
Evidence sustained convictions for smuggling, and for conspiracy to smuggle psittacine birds
into the United States. Duke v. U.S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1958, 255 F.2d 721, certiorari denied 78 S.Ct.
1361, 357 U.S. 920, 2 L.Ed.2d 1365. Conspiracy
47(3.1); Customs Duties
134
Evidence sustained convictions of violations of customs law by smuggling marihuana into the
United States and by concealing and transporting such marihuana. Padron v. U.S., C.A.5 (Tex.)
1958, 254 F.2d 574, certiorari denied 79 S.Ct. 22, 358 U.S. 815, 3 L.Ed.2d 57. Customs Duties
134; Controlled Substances
86
Evidence was insufficient for conviction for smuggling and clandestinely introducing
merchandise into United States to defraud United States. Wong Bing Nung v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.)
1955, 221 F.2d 917. Customs Duties
134
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 84
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
Where defendant, having dutiable goods secreted on his person, knowingly passed the customs
office at the dock where he entered the United States and ignored three distinct calls of the
customs officer before his further progress was arrested and the goods disclosed, when he stated
for the first time that he expected to enter the goods at the main custom-house some distance
away, instead of at the dock, a finding that he intended to evade entering the goods or paying the
duty at all, and that he was guilty of smuggling, was justified under the rule that a person
becomes guilty of that offense by avoiding the first opportunity given to make a customs
declaration and pay the duty. Rogers v. U. S., C.C.A.6 (Mich.) 1910, 180 F. 54, 103 C.C.A. 264,
103 C.C.A. 408. Customs Duties
122
Evidence was insufficient to warrant conviction for smuggling marihuana. U.S. v. Tijerina,
S.D.Tex.1956, 138 F.Supp. 759. See, also, U.S. v. Beck, D.C.Tex.1956, 138 F.Supp. 756.
Customs Duties
134; Controlled Substances
86
178. Examination of witnesses, evidence and witnesses
In prosecution for smuggling and conspiracy relative to alleged plot to blow up Statue of Liberty,
court's refusal to permit third party to testify that government witness asked him to participate in
a plan to blow up Statue of Liberty was not erroneous where defendants failed to lay a proper
foundation to support an attack on government witness' credibility based on his alleged request
to third party to take part in violent action. U. S. v. Bowe, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1966, 360 F.2d 1,
certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 401, 385 U.S. 961, 17 L.Ed.2d 306, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 779, 385
U.S. 1042, 17 L.Ed.2d 686, rehearing denied 87 S.Ct. 1040, 386 U.S. 969, 18 L.Ed.2d 127.
Witnesses
398(2)
In prosecution for conspiracy and smuggling relating to alleged plot to blow up Statue of Liberty,
testimony of second defendant on cross-examination that he owned two rifles was properly
received where first defendant made no objection at trial and second defendant had previously
sought to establish his character for peacefulness and nonviolence. U. S. v. Bowe, C.A.2 (N.Y.)
1966, 360 F.2d 1, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 401, 385 U.S. 961, 17 L.Ed.2d 306, certiorari denied
87 S.Ct. 779, 385 U.S. 1042, 17 L.Ed.2d 686, rehearing denied 87 S.Ct. 1040, 386 U.S. 969, 18
L.Ed.2d 127. Criminal Law
698(1); Witnesses
277(2.1)
179. Impeachment of witnesses, evidence and witnesses
Prosecution did not violate Brady by failing to disclose his former wife's cooperation with law
enforcement investigators prior to trial, in prosecution for violation of the Trading with the
Enemy Act (TWEA), and smuggling Cuban cigars; although defendant argued that information
wife allegedly provided to law enforcement investigator, that defendant's large personal injury
settlement left him able to devote himself to his cigar smuggling activities, could have been used
to impeach her testimony, such information was not "material," as investigator testified that he
did not know about any such settlement. U.S. v. Connors, C.A.7 (Ill.) 2006, 441 F.3d 527.
Criminal Law
700(4)
Where customs agent advised defendant of his right to remain silent and to have counsel present
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 85
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
at interrogation but did not advise him of his right to appointment of counsel if he was indigent,
court's permitting prosecution to use part of his statement for impeachment purposes was
reversible error. Groshart v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1968, 392 F.2d 172. Criminal Law
1170.5(1); Witnesses
390
Rifles and ammunition taken from defendant charged with conspiracy and smuggling in relation
to plot to blow up Statue of Liberty were properly received both to contradict evidence of
character and to impeach defendant's veracity as a witness where defendant had testified
previously that he was associated with nonaction groups participating in civil rights movement
and that he vigorously opposed any violent action. U. S. v. Bowe, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1966, 360 F.2d
1, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 401, 385 U.S. 961, 17 L.Ed.2d 306, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 779,
385 U.S. 1042, 17 L.Ed.2d 686, rehearing denied 87 S.Ct. 1040, 386 U.S. 969, 18 L.Ed.2d 127.
Criminal Law
378; Witnesses
331.5
Excluding affidavit for search warrant executed day following accused's arrest, offered to
impeach officer's testimony and attack his credibility, was prejudicially erroneous. U.S. v.
Kaplan, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1931, 47 F.2d 587. Criminal Law
1170(1)
180. Defenses, evidence and witnesses
Claim that the withholding by the Federal Drug Administration of approval for Laetrile amounts
to "governmental misconduct" was not a defense to a charge of conspiracy to smuggle Laetrile
into the country since that crime is committed without regard to whether the importation of the
merchandise would be legal or illegal. U. S. v. Richardson, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1978, 588 F.2d 1235,
certiorari denied 99 S.Ct. 1426, 440 U.S. 947, 59 L.Ed.2d 636, rehearing denied 99 S.Ct. 2064,
441 U.S. 937, 60 L.Ed.2d 667, certiorari denied 99 S.Ct. 2049, 441 U.S. 931, 60 L.Ed.2d 658.
Conspiracy
38
Since persons who sought to bring Laetrile into the country could have sought to have the
Federal Drug Administration classification of Laetrile set aside or to have it approved as a new
drug, their conspiracy to smuggle the drug into the country could not be defended on the basis of
necessity or choice of evils on the theory that they were faced with the choice of either declaring
the Laetrile, in which case they would not have been permitted to bring into the United States, or
smuggling it into the United States. U. S. v. Richardson, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1978, 588 F.2d 1235,
certiorari denied 99 S.Ct. 1426, 440 U.S. 947, 59 L.Ed.2d 636, rehearing denied 99 S.Ct. 2064,
441 U.S. 937, 60 L.Ed.2d 667, certiorari denied 99 S.Ct. 2049, 441 U.S. 931, 60 L.Ed.2d 658.
Controlled Substances
51
V. FORFEITURES
<Subdivision Index>
Acquittal of criminal charges, defenses 226
Admissibility of evidence 231
Agricultural products, merchandise subject to forfeiture 203
Alcoholic beverages, merchandise subject to forfeiture 204
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
Bond 215
Burden of proof 230
Civil nature, nature of proceedings 216
Criminal nature of proceedings 217
Defenses 225-227
Defenses - Generally 225
Defenses - Acquittal of criminal charges 226
Defenses - Innocence of owner 227
Direction of verdict 233
Dismissal, libel or information 224
Dutiable or nondutiable merchandise, merchandise subject to forfeiture 205
Election of remedies 219
Estoppel 228
Gold bullion or coins, merchandise subject to forfeiture 206
Goods imported contrary to law, merchandise subject to forfeiture 207
Illegally seized merchandise, merchandise subject to forfeiture 208
In rem nature of proceedings 218
Innocence of owner, defenses 227
Intervention 222
Jewelry, merchandise subject to forfeiture 209
Judgment 234
Jurisdiction 220
Libel or information 223, 224
Libel or information - Generally 223
Libel or information - Dismissal 224
Liens on goods 235
Merchandise subject to forfeiture 202-212
Merchandise subject to forfeiture - Generally 202
Merchandise subject to forfeiture - Agricultural products 203
Merchandise subject to forfeiture - Alcoholic beverages 204
Merchandise subject to forfeiture - Dutiable or nondutiable merchandise 205
Merchandise subject to forfeiture - Gold bullion or coins 206
Merchandise subject to forfeiture - Goods imported contrary to law 207
Merchandise subject to forfeiture - Illegally seized merchandise 208
Merchandise subject to forfeiture - Jewelry 209
Merchandise subject to forfeiture - Publications 210
Merchandise subject to forfeiture - Smuggled goods 211
Merchandise subject to forfeiture - Stolen merchandise 212
Nature of proceedings 216-218
Nature of proceedings - Civil nature 216
Nature of proceedings - Criminal nature of proceedings 217
Nature of proceedings - In rem nature of proceedings 218
Parties 221
Publications, merchandise subject to forfeiture 210
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
Page 86
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 87
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
Seizure as prerequisite to forfeiture 201
Smuggled goods, merchandise subject to forfeiture 211
Stolen merchandise, merchandise subject to forfeiture 212
Summary judgment 229
Vehicles 213
Vessels 214
Weight and sufficiency of evidence 232
201. Seizure as prerequisite to forfeiture
Former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] did not entitle government to maintain suit for
value of goods which were subject to forfeiture under that section, but which had never been
seized. National Atlas Elevator Co. v. U.S., C.C.A.8 (N.D.) 1938, 97 F.2d 940.
A lawful seizure is not prerequisite to forfeiture, therefore a vessel, although not engaged in
smuggling operations or in violation of law when seized, was subject to forfeiture for past
offenses. The Sea Hawk, D.C.Tex.1930, 45 F.2d 437. Shipping
16
202. Merchandise subject to forfeiture--Generally
Holding goods subject to forfeiture under former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] was
harmless where under the facts found they were so subject under other statutes. Alksne v. U.S.,
C.C.A.1 (Mass.) 1930, 39 F.2d 62, certiorari denied 50 S.Ct. 467, 281 U.S. 768, 74 L.Ed. 1175.
Articles prohibited from importation, if actually brought into the country, are "imported", and, if
knowingly brought in, are subject to forfeiture. Feathers of Wild Birds v. U.S., C.C.A.2 (N.Y.)
1920, 267 F. 964, certiorari denied 41 S.Ct. 14, 254 U.S. 643, 65 L.Ed. 453. See, also, Friedman
v. U.S., C.C.A.N.Y.1921, 276 F. 792. Customs Duties
130(1)
Prohibited goods are ipso facto forfeited by the fact of importation. U.S. v. Sischo,
E.D.Wash.1919, 262 F. 1001, affirmed 270 F. 958, certiorari granted 41 S.Ct. 624, 256 U.S. 688,
65 L.Ed. 1172, affirmed 43 S.Ct. 88, 260 U.S. 697, 67 L.Ed. 469, rehearing granted 43 S.Ct. 93,
260 U.S. 701, 67 L.Ed. 469, reversed on other grounds 43 S.Ct. 511, 262 U.S. 165, 67 L.Ed. 925.
Customs Duties
130(11)
Goods which, disguised as personal baggage, were attempted to be introduced into the commerce
of the country by means of a false baggage declaration, were subject to forfeiture. U.S. v. One
Blue Taffeta Evening Coat, Trimmed Lace, and Other Women's Clothing, S.D.N.Y.1916, 237 F.
703. Customs Duties
130(8)
Only the goods about which false statements are made are forfeited, unless they are boxed or
baled with others. U.S. v. One Blue Taffeta Evening Coat, Trimmed Lace, and Other Women's
Clothing, S.D.N.Y.1916, 237 F. 703. Customs Duties
130(8)
Where a plan to smuggle is shown by the manner of packing and invoicing, imported
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 88
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
merchandise is liable to forfeiture, though the invoice may have been corrected before entry.
U.S. v. One Bag of Crushed Wheat, S.D.N.Y.1908, 166 F. 562. Customs Duties
130(10)
Goods brought in with intent to smuggle may not be seized while there remains opportunity for
change of intent before the time for due entry has passed. U.S. v. One Pearl Chain, N.Y.1905,
139 F. 513, 71 C.C.A. 500. U.S. v. One Pearl Chain, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1905, 139 F. 513, 71
C.C.A. 500.
Merchandise may be forfeited although the United States was not defrauded, and there was no
intent to defraud. U.S. v. Fifty Waltham Watch Movements, N.D.N.Y.1905, 139 F. 291.
Customs Duties
130(4.1)
A false entry does not subject the goods to forfeiture. U.S. v. Fifty-Three Boxes of Havana
Sugar, S.D.Ohio 1870, 25 F.Cas. 1081, 2 Bond 346, No. 15098.
Where goods were brought from a foreign port, under the fraudulent pretext of having been
brought direct from a home port, it was determined that they were subject to forfeiture under Act
Mar. 2, 1799, c. 22, § 23, 1 Stat. 644. The Ariel, D.C.Me.1867, 1 F.Cas. 1113, No. 527.
203. ---- Agricultural products, merchandise subject to forfeiture
Wheat purchased by a defendant with knowledge that it had been smuggled into the country in
violation of former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] could be seized while in hands of
defendant and, upon proper proceedings, forfeited for violation of said section, notwithstanding
that it had been commingled by defendant with other wheat. National Atlas Elevator Co. v. U.S.,
C.C.A.8 (N.D.) 1938, 97 F.2d 940. Customs Duties
130(12)
Potatoes, the importation of which was prohibited by § 160 of Title 7, with the vehicles used in
their importation, were not subject to forfeiture because brought in without payment of duties,
and without offering them for entry, but were forfeitable because not presented for inspection as
required by a rule of the Secretary of Agriculture promulgated under said § 160. Daigle v. U.S.,
C.C.A.1 (Me.) 1916, 237 F. 159, 150 C.C.A. 305.
204. ---- Alcoholic beverages, merchandise subject to forfeiture
Alleged branding ink was subject to forfeiture, it appearing that the coloring matter could easily
be removed leaving a 90 residuum of beverage alcohol. U.S. v. 99 Drums Alleged Branding Ink,
E.D.N.Y.1930, 46 F.2d 569.
Liquor cargo, not brought within territorial jurisdiction of United States before seizure, was not
subject to forfeiture as fraudulently imported. The Vinces, E.D.S.C.1927, 20 F.2d 164, affirmed
27 F.2d 296, certiorari denied 49 S.Ct. 32, 278 U.S. 635, 73 L.Ed. 552. Customs Duties
130(11)
Spirits brought into the United States in violation of Acts Aug. 10, 1917, c. 53, 40 Stat. 276;
Oct. 3, 1917, c. 63, § 301, 40 Stat. 308; Nov. 21, 1918, c. 212, § 1, 40 Stat. 1045, might be
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 89
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
seized and forfeited under former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section]. 1919, 31 Op.Atty.Gen.
392.
205. ---- Dutiable or nondutiable merchandise, merchandise subject to forfeiture
Where an importer knowingly brought in merchandise in evasion of the customs laws, it became
liable to forfeiture under former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section], though if duly imported, it
would have been free of duty. U.S. v. Fifty Waltham Watch Movements, N.D.N.Y.1905, 139 F.
291.
Former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] applied to passengers' baggage, and dutiable
articles therein are liable to forfeiture. U.S. v. Five Packages of Tapestry, D.C.Mass.1902, 114
F. 496.
Where cargo was being concealed in vessel with knowledge that it had been imported, and its
only destination could have been agencies of distribution which were operating so as to avoid
payment of duties, forfeiture proceeding for violation of former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this
section] was justified, notwithstanding at time and place of seizure no duties were payable, and
no landing or attempt to land had been made. The Felicia, E.D.N.Y.1936, 13 F.Supp. 959.
Customs Duties
130(4.1)
Where goods subject to duty are mixed with other goods upon which duties have been paid at an
earlier port of entry with an intention to smuggle them, the latter are not subject to forfeiture,
unless there was an intent to defraud by importing them. U.S. v. Two Thousand Four Hundred
and Nineteen Sheepskins, D.C.Me.1880, 28 F.Cas. 315, No. 16589A. Customs Duties
130(3)
Dutiable goods, imported as passenger's baggage, where no attempt was made to have them
passed as such, and the owner, without knowledge of their seizure, offered them with correct
bills of lading and moneys for entry at the custom house, were not forfeitable. U.S. v. NinetyFive Boxes, etc., D.C.N.J.1874, 27 F.Cas. 171, No. 15891. Customs Duties
130(10);
Forfeitures
3
206. ---- Gold bullion or coins, merchandise subject to forfeiture
Mexican gold coin, concealed on person with intent not to declare it, was not subject to
forfeiture, if possession was disclosed as soon as opportunity was afforded. Lozano v. U.S.,
C.C.A.5 (Tex.) 1927, 17 F.2d 7. Customs Duties
130(4.1)
Where bullion was brought from Mexico into the United States contrary to law by one to whom
an agent of the owner had entrusted it, if such agent was acting within the scope of his authority
as the owner's agent, the bullion was subject to be forfeited although the owner did not give any
instructions to his agent as to the manner or means to be employed or not to comply with the law
in bringing it in. Shaar v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (Tex.) 1920, 269 F. 26.
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 90
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
207. ---- Goods imported contrary to law, merchandise subject to forfeiture
An owner of gold and silver bullion who intrusted it to another in Mexico to be delivered to a
bank in the United States, but with no instructions as to the means of bringing it in, or as to its
entry or declaration at a customs house, was bound by the action of such person in delivering it
to a third person to be taken across the boundary and in failing to make entry of it and pay the
internal revenue tax thereon, and the bullion was determined to be forfeitable for importation in
violation of law. Shaar v. U.S., C.C.A.5 (Tex.) 1920, 269 F. 26. Customs Duties
130(12);
Internal Revenue
2246
Merchandise imported by a person employed in the Customs Service as an appraiser of imports,
in violation of R.S. § 2638 [now § 1599 of Title 19] was determined to be imported "contrary to
law", and subject to seizure and forfeiture under former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section]. In
re 200 7/12 Dozen Wool Hose and Half Hose, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1920, 263 F. 376. Customs Duties
130(4.1)
A package containing diamonds sent by registered mail from Cuba to the United States, plainly
marked "Loose diamonds, dutiable", was not subject to forfeiture under former § 1593 of Title
19 [now this section]; as having been "fraudulently or knowingly" imported contrary to law,
although the universal postal convention in force at the time, to which Cuba was a party,
prohibited the mailing of dutiable articles. Four Packages of Cut Diamonds v. U.S., C.C.A.2
(N.Y.) 1919, 256 F. 305, 167 C.C.A. 477. Customs Duties
130(10)
The seizure directed under R.S. § 3082 [now this section] related to property imported contrary
to law. U.S. v. Chesbrough, D.C.N.J.1910, 176 F. 778.
As importer, for the purpose of serving his own pecuniary interests, intentionally omitted to meet
the requirements of the customs laws of the United States, in that he failed to enter certain
imported articles at any custom house, and to comply otherwise with the law, where if duly
imported, the articles would have been free of duty, this was an offense which rendered the
merchandise liable to forfeiture, as imported "knowingly * * * contrary to law". U.S. v. Fifty
Waltham Watch Movements, N.D.N.Y.1905, 139 F. 291. Customs Duties
130(4.1)
Government seeking forfeiture of devices used to house components of machine guns established
probable cause that importer acted with intent to defraud government in identifying devices as
"fireboxes" on form submitted to government and stating that shipments did not contain
receivers for machine guns; because of his experience with guns, it could be inferred that he
knew his statements were false. U.S. v. 1,100 Machine Gun Receivers, D.Utah 1999, 73
F.Supp.2d 1289, affirmed 9 Fed.Appx. 815, 2001 WL 520930. Customs Duties
133(6)
208. ---- Illegally seized merchandise, merchandise subject to forfeiture
Neither papers nor property obtained by illegal search and seizure may be used as evidence in a
criminal proceeding, but the United States may adopt the illegal seizure for purposes of forfeiture
of property obtained by such seizure, with the same effect as if it had been originally made by
one duly authorized. U.S. v. Eight Boxes Containing Various Articles of Miscellaneous
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 91
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
Merchandise, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1939, 105 F.2d 896. Criminal Law
Duties
133(2)
394.4(1); Customs
Violation of U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 4 by unlawful search and seizure required the return of
books, records, and papers, which the government wished to use as evidence, but not of
smuggled merchandise seized, against which the government had brought libels for forfeiture.
U.S. v. Eight Boxes Containing Various Articles of Miscellaneous Merchandise, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.)
1939, 105 F.2d 896. Searches And Seizures
84
209. ---- Jewelry, merchandise subject to forfeiture
Jewelry worn by person clandestinely entering country was nondutiable, and not subject to
forfeiture under Act Sept. 21, 1922, c. 356, § 593, 42 Stat. 982 [now this section]. U.S. v.
Mattio, C.C.A.9 (Cal.) 1927, 17 F.2d 879. Customs Duties
130(3)
Where it was charged that certain precious stones and jewelry were imported with intent to
defraud the United States of duty thereon, a proceeding in rem to forfeit the same was properly
brought under R.S. § 3082 [now this section], but such proceeding in rem did not lie to forfeit
money arising from the sale in this country of goods fraudulently imported. U. S. v. A Lot of
Precious Stones and Jewelry, C.C.A.6 (Mich.) 1905, 134 F. 61, 68 C.C.A. 1. Customs Duties
133(1)
210. ---- Publications, merchandise subject to forfeiture
Former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section] was inapplicable to contraceptive publications,
which were examined and detained when first arriving from abroad by mail. U.S. v. Nicholas,
C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1938, 97 F.2d 510. Customs Duties
130(3)
211. ---- Smuggled goods, merchandise subject to forfeiture
Smuggled goods are to be associated with prohibited goods and are not liable to duty, therefore,
the government should limit its action to forfeiture of the goods and prosecution of the offender.
1903, 24 Op.Atty.Gen. 583.
212. ---- Stolen merchandise, merchandise subject to forfeiture
When property afloat is feloniously taken from the possession of the owner, and is brought
ashore in contravention of the revenue laws and then seized by the officers of customs, it will not
be forfeited as against the true owner. U. S. v. Two Hundred and Eight Bags of Kainit,
D.S.C.1889, 37 F. 326.
Property stolen from a friendly foreign sovereign, and smuggled into the United States, is not
subject to forfeiture for illegal importation. In re Princess of Orange, S.D.N.Y.1831, 19 F.Cas.
1336, No. 11431. Customs Duties
130(5)
213. Vehicles, forfeitures
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 92
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
An automobile, loaned owner's daughter and by her to another, who used it for smuggling liquor,
was subject to forfeiture. U.S. v. One Lincoln Touring Car, D.C.N.Y.1925, 11 F.2d 551.
Customs Duties
130(12)
An automobile manufactured in Canada and rented by the owner there for use only as a taxicab
in Canada, but used without the owner's knowledge or consent to bring intoxicating liquors into
the United States, was not subject to forfeiture under R.S. § 3082 [now this section] as having
brought in without being entered or declared, where there was no intention that the vehicle
should remain in the United States, but it was used only for transportation purposes. U.S. v.
Gularas, C.C.A.9 (Wash.) 1923, 288 F. 54. Customs Duties
130(6)
Forfeiture of potatoes brought into the United States, as well as the vehicles used in their
importation, could not be upheld, under R.S. § 3082 [now this section]. Daigle v. U.S., C.C.A.1
(Me.) 1916, 237 F. 159, 150 C.C.A. 305. Customs Duties
130(11)
214. Vessels, forfeitures
Government might forfeit licensed coastwise vessel under former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this
section] or navigation laws for unlawfully importing liquor, regardless of prosecution under
National Prohibition Act, former § 1 et seq. of Title 27. The Patricia, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1933, 62
F.2d 1054, certiorari denied 53 S.Ct. 690, 289 U.S. 747, 77 L.Ed. 1493. Shipping
16
Vessel engaged in unlawful trade, contrary to license, need not be proceeded against under
National Prohibition Act, former § 1 et seq. of Title 27, because contraband cargo was liquor.
U.S. v. Hamilton, C.C.A.4 (Va.) 1932, 62 F.2d 29. Shipping
16
Licensed pleasure yacht carrying 400 cases of whisky was subject to forfeiture as engaged in
unlicensed "trade". The Rosemary, D.C.N.J.1927, 23 F.2d 103, reversed on other grounds 26
F.2d 354, certiorari denied 49 S.Ct. 23, 278 U.S. 619, 73 L.Ed. 542. Customs Duties
130(3); Forfeitures
3
Where claimant's title to liquor ship was void, condemnation of forfeiture pro confesso follows
on sufficient allegations of libels by the United States, in absence of other claims. The W. Talbot
Dodge, D.C.N.Y.1926, 15 F.2d 459. Customs Duties
133(8)
Liquor-laden American vessel, seized 34 miles off coast, was not subject to forfeiture. The
Underwriter, C.C.A.2 (Conn.) 1926, 13 F.2d 433, affirmed 47 S.Ct. 735, 274 U.S. 501, 71 L.Ed.
1171.
Rum-smuggling treaties with Great Britain and Norway are not self-executing, in sense that they
extend territorial jurisdiction of laws of United States, and vessels and liquor cargo seized 20
miles from shore were subject to forfeiture. The Sagatind, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1926, 11 F.2d 673.
Customs Duties
130(11); Intoxicating Liquors
246
A vessel, the master of which, at a point within 4 leagues from the shore, allowed intoxicating
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 93
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
liquors to be unladen, with the liquor then unladen, but not the balance of the cargo, was subject
to forfeiture, though the vessel was not destined to a port of the United States. The Muriel E.
Winters, D.C.Tex.1925, 6 F.2d 466.
Where vessel was found carrying cargo of liquor instead of pursuing calling described in license,
government was not required to proceed under National Prohibition Act, former § 1 et seq. of
Title 27, but could maintain forfeiture proceeding under former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this
section] or navigation laws. The Felicia, E.D.N.Y.1936, 13 F.Supp. 959. Customs Duties
133(1); Shipping
16
215. Bond, forfeitures
Vessel seized for violation of law may be released on bond. The Lynx, II, D.C.N.Y.1926, 14
F.2d 697. Admiralty
57
Statutes relating to bonding of vessel seized for violation of revenue and prohibition acts are
mandatory, irrespective of prior seizures. The California, D.C.N.Y.1926, 12 F.2d 270.
Admiralty
57
216. Nature of proceedings, forfeitures--Civil nature
Informations under the revenue laws for the forfeiture of goods, which seek no judgment of fine
or imprisonment, are civil actions, although so far in the nature of criminal proceedings that a
general verdict on several counts in an information is upheld if one count is good. Friedenstein
v. U.S., U.S.N.Y.1888, 8 S.Ct. 838, 125 U.S. 224, 31 L.Ed. 736.
Former § 497 of Title 19 did not authorize a civil action. U.S. v. Claflin, U.S.N.Y.1878, 97 U.S.
546, 7 Otto 546, 24 L.Ed. 1082.
Court of International Trade could not order the release of coffee seized by the Customs Service,
in that issue as to whether fraudulent attempt was made to enter coffee into the United States by
means of a false document or statement was before the District Court in a civil forfeiture action
commenced by the Government prior to the filing of the present action in the Court of
International Trade. Seaside Realty Corp. v. U.S., CIT 1985, 607 F.Supp. 1481, 9 C.I.T. 178.
Federal Courts
1145
217. ---- Criminal nature of proceedings, forfeitures
The proceedings contemplated by former § 497 of Title 19 were criminal. U.S. v. Chesbrough,
D.C.N.J.1910, 176 F. 778.
218. ---- In rem nature of proceedings, forfeitures
Forfeiture of merchandise or its value, where merchandise is not available for seizure, is an in
rem remedy, and civil penalty is in personam and government is not required to elect its remedy.
U.S. v. Wing Leong, C.A.7 (Ill.) 1961, 287 F.2d 849. Customs Duties
129; Customs
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 94
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
Duties
133(1)
R.S. § 3082 [now this section] was determined to authorize a suit in rem for forfeiture. U.S. v.
A Lot of Jewelry, etc., D.C.N.Y.1894, 59 F. 684, 685. See, also, 3,880 Boxes of Opium v. U.S.,
C.C.Cal.1883, 9 Sawy. 259, 23 F. 367.
Where a statute contains a forfeiture clause which is in rem in nature and not in personam, and
the clause does not expressly or impliedly provide for a prior conviction of the individual
offender, such a conviction is not a prerequisite of forfeiture; a conviction in such cases is not
necessary because the property, not the person, is considered to be the offender. U.S. v.
Approximately 2,475,840 Lbs. of Clean, Unroasted Coffee Beans, D.C.Puerto Rico 1985, 608
F.Supp. 288. Forfeitures
4
Forfeiture of goods is not an automatic part of a criminal conviction for fraudulently or
knowingly importing or bringing into the United States any merchandise contrary to law; rather,
obtaining such a forfeiture requires separate civil in rem proceedings. U.S. v. Gold Mountain
Coffee, Ltd., CIT 1984, 597 F.Supp. 510, 8 C.I.T. 247, rehearing denied 601 F.Supp. 212, 8
C.I.T. 336. Customs Duties
133(1)
Forfeiture of smuggled goods under this section involving the crime of smuggling goods into the
United States is not an automatic consequence of conviction; rather, enforcement of this
section's forfeiture clause requires separate in rem proceedings. U.S. v. Brigance, S.D.Tex.1979,
472 F.Supp. 1177. Customs Duties
133(1)
219. Election of remedies, forfeitures
Institution of criminal proceeding for conspiracy to violate former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this
section] and National Prohibition Act, former § 1 et seq. of Title 27, did not constitute election
precluding government from maintaining forfeiture proceeding under former § 1593 of Title 19
[now this section] or navigation laws. The Felicia, E.D.N.Y.1936, 13 F.Supp. 959. Customs
Duties
133(1); Shipping
16
220. Jurisdiction, forfeitures
It can make no difference to federal court's jurisdiction of proceeding for forfeiture of smuggled
goods, based on seizure of such goods, whether the forfeiture occurs at the time of the seizure or
is dependent on subsequent events. U.S. v. Eight Boxes Containing Various Articles of
Miscellaneous Merchandise, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1939, 105 F.2d 896. Customs Duties
133(2)
In libel to forfeit allegedly smuggled goods, showing that the res was in Collector's possession
when the libel was filed is sufficient to support jurisdiction of the libel, irrespective of the
method used in bringing the res into the district. U.S. v. Eight Boxes Containing Various
Articles of Miscellaneous Merchandise, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1939, 105 F.2d 896. Customs Duties
133(2)
Where the United States chose to adopt a seizure of allegedly smuggled goods, though the
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 95
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
seizure was under a search warrant allegedly granted in violation of U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 4,
federal court had jurisdiction of the merchandise and could properly declare it forfeited. U.S. v.
Eight Boxes Containing Various Articles of Miscellaneous Merchandise, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1939,
105 F.2d 896. Customs Duties
133(2)
Federal court for District of New Jersey was without jurisdiction of libel against yacht seized on
North River between low-water mark on New Jersey side and Manhattan Island. The Rosemary,
D.C.N.J.1927, 23 F.2d 103, reversed on other grounds 26 F.2d 354, certiorari denied 49 S.Ct. 23,
278 U.S. 619, 73 L.Ed. 542.
Jurisdiction acquired by seizure of boat for engaging in unlicensed trade is not lost by failure to
allege seizure in libel itself. The Rosemary, D.C.N.J.1927, 23 F.2d 103, reversed on other
grounds 26 F.2d 354, certiorari denied 49 S.Ct. 23, 278 U.S. 619, 73 L.Ed. 542. Customs Duties
133(2)
Jurisdiction of a proceeding for the forfeiture of smuggled goods exists only in the district of
seizure, which is the district in which the goods, if on land, are found; a Collector cannot, by
carrying them into another district and there making the formal seizure, confer jurisdiction of the
proceeding on the court in such district. U.S. v. Larkin, C.C.A.6 (Ohio) 1907, 153 F. 113, 82
C.C.A. 247. Customs Duties
133(2)
Court of International Trade, in suit by the government under Tariff Act civil penalty section,
would not exercise pendent jurisdiction over government's federal civil forfeiture claim,
jurisdiction over which generally lies with district courts. U.S. v. Tabor, CIT 1985, 608 F.Supp.
658, 9 C.I.T. 233. Customs Duties
84(1)
United States Court of International Trade would not, in proceeding brought under section 1592
of Title 19, exercise ancillary jurisdiction over the Government's action for forfeiture of imported
coffee which had been improperly labeled, since Congress had had a recent opportunity to
review the Court's jurisdiction and did not give it jurisdiction over in rem forfeiture actions, and
since, though the actions were closely related, the Court could fully and effectively dispose of
the penalty action without considering all issues involved in a parallel forfeiture proceeding.
U.S. v. Gold Mountain Coffee, Ltd., CIT 1984, 597 F.Supp. 510, 8 C.I.T. 247, rehearing denied
601 F.Supp. 212, 8 C.I.T. 336. Customs Duties
84(1)
Federal district court had jurisdiction of libel by United States to condemn 13,076 raw mink
skins imported into the United States and seized because consumption entry falsely listed
country of origin as Sweden instead of Russia and falsely listed number of skins as 5,040. U. S.
v. Eight Bales No. S I.J.K. Raw Mink Skins, S.D.N.Y.1964, 227 F.Supp. 425. Customs Duties
133(2)
221. Parties, forfeitures
User of automobile in smuggling, who had property interest in it, was party to forfeiture suit, and
car was affected by his acts and admissions. U.S. v. One Buick Automobile, D.C.Vt.1927, 21
F.2d 789. Customs Duties
133(4); Evidence
222(1)
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 96
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
222. Intervention, forfeitures
The reviewing court would not disturb for abuse of discretion an order denying motion for leave
to intervene in suit to forfeit allegedly smuggled merchandise, where there was no showing of
facts justifying intervention. U.S. v. Eight Boxes Containing Various Articles of Miscellaneous
Merchandise, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1939, 105 F.2d 896. Customs Duties
133(10)
223. Libel or information, forfeitures--Generally
Failure to allege in libel that yacht was formally seized was not fatal, where evidence showed
seizure by proper authority. The Rosemary, D.C.N.J.1927, 23 F.2d 103, reversed on other
grounds 26 F.2d 354, certiorari denied 49 S.Ct. 23, 278 U.S. 619, 73 L.Ed. 542. Customs Duties
133(5)
Facts were sufficient to establish reasonable cause for filing information for forfeiture of
smuggled goods. U.S. v. 394 Cases of Lawson Scotch Whisky, D.C.Mass.1927, 21 F.2d 989.
Customs Duties
133(1)
Technical defects in an information for forfeiture of merchandise for importation in violation of
the customs laws will be disregarded, unless timely objection is made. U.S. v. Twenty-Five
Pictures, S.D.N.Y.1919, 260 F. 851. Customs Duties
133(5)
An exception cannot be sustained to a libel for the forfeiture of goods for nonpayment of
customs duties, which is insufficient as to part of the goods described therein, but good as to the
rest. U.S. v. One Blue Taffeta Evening Coat, Trimmed Lace, and Other Women's Clothing,
S.D.N.Y.1916, 237 F. 703. Customs Duties
133(5)
It is permissible to plead contradictory versions of the same transaction in different counts of a
libel for the forfeiture of goods for the nonpayment of customs duties therein. U.S. v. One Blue
Taffeta Evening Coat, Trimmed Lace, and Other Women's Clothing, S.D.N.Y.1916, 237 F. 703.
Customs Duties
133(5)
Claimant of merchandise and vehicles sought to be forfeited for unlawful importation into the
United States by land cannot complain that process is termed a libel of information, instead of an
information; the instrument reciting that seizure was by land. Daigle v. U.S., C.C.A.1 (Me.)
1916, 237 F. 159, 150 C.C.A. 305. Customs Duties
130(11)
Where the information was not demurred to, nor any application for particulars made before the
trial, it was determined that the information, being capable of amendment if objected to, would,
after verdict, not be regarded so technically as if the trial were upon indictment instead of upon
an information. U.S. v. A Lot of Jewelry, E.D.N.Y.1894, 59 F. 684.
Where the information contained averments that certain persons named did receive the goods
described, knowing the same to have been imported contrary to law; that the goods were seized
by the Collector within the district; that they were subject to duty; that they were brought from
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 97
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
a foreign port into the port of New York, without being invoiced or entered at the custom house,
without the payment of any duty whatever, and that they were so imported, contrary to law, into
the United States by persons named, fraudulently and knowingly, the averments were sufficient
to support a judgment of forfeiture under R.S. § 3082 [now this section]. U.S. v. A Lot of
Jewelry, E.D.N.Y.1894, 59 F. 684.
Guilty knowledge on the part of the importer must be averred. U.S. v. Ninety Demijohns of
Rum, C.C.S.D.Fla 1880, 8 F. 485.
224. ---- Dismissal, libel or information, forfeitures
Motion of claimant to dismiss libel by United States for condemnation of eight bales of raw mink
skins would be treated as exception and matters submitted in support of motion as exceptive
allegations to libel. U. S. v. Eight Bales No. S I.J.K. Raw Mink Skins, S.D.N.Y.1964, 227
F.Supp. 425. Customs Duties
133(5)
On motion to dismiss libel by United States for condemnation of eight bales of raw mink skins,
which was treated as exception, claimant would be deemed to have admitted all facts well
pleaded in libel. U. S. v. Eight Bales No. S I.J.K. Raw Mink Skins, S.D.N.Y.1964, 227 F.Supp.
425. Customs Duties
133(5)
225. Defenses, forfeitures--Generally
On proceedings for the forfeiture of merchandise, which would have been admissible free of
duty on compliance with regulations which the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to
prescribe, it may not be maintained in defense that the regulations have not been promulgated,
and that therefore the importer was justified in importing the merchandise according to his own
convenience, independently of the requirements of law since such an importation would be
"contrary to law". U.S. v. Fifty Waltham Watch Movements, N.D.N.Y.1905, 139 F. 291.
Customs Duties
130(4.1)
Conviction on indictment for smuggling, where imprisonment imposed was served out, and fine
paid, and pardon received as to costs of prosecution, also imposed, was a bar to civil action of
debt to recover penalty imposed by a prior law. U.S. v. Gates, S.D.N.Y.1845, 25 F.Cas. 1263, 8
Law Rep. 465, No. 15191. See, also, U.S. v. Tilton, D.C.N.Y.1874, Fed.Cas. No. 16,525.
Customs Duties
129
226. ---- Acquittal of criminal charges, defenses, forfeitures
Proceeding to forfeit undeclared imports is civil and remedial, rather than criminal, and forfeiture
proceeding after acquittal on smuggling charge was not barred by double jeopardy clause of
U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 5. One Lot Emerald Cut Stones and One Ring v. U. S., U.S.Fla.1972,
93 S.Ct. 489, 409 U.S. 232, 34 L.Ed.2d 438. Double Jeopardy
25
Acquittal on indictment charging violation of R.S. § 3082 [now this section] was a bar to
subsequent libel of information seeking forfeiture of goods brought into country without
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 98
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
payment of duty, where transaction was same, and statutory violations alleged were same. Sierra
v. U.S., C.C.A.1 (Puerto Rico) 1916, 233 F. 37, 147 C.C.A. 107. Customs Duties
133(8)
Verdict for defendants, indicted for smuggling certain diamond rings into United States, was
ground for plea in bar to libel by United States for forfeiture of the rings. U.S. v. Rosenthal,
C.C.A.5 (Tex.) 1909, 174 F. 652, 98 C.C.A. 406. Customs Duties
133(8)
Where a person charged to have fraudulently imported certain merchandise with intent to
defraud the United States of duty legally payable thereon was tried and acquitted, such acquittal
was a bar to a further proceeding to forfeit the merchandise as against him. U.S. v. A Lot of
Precious Stones and Jewelry, Mich.1905, 134 F. 61, 68 C.C.A. 1. See, also, U.S. v. 20 Strings of
Seed Pearls, etc., D.C.N.Y.929, 34 F.2d 142. Customs Duties
133(8)
An information having been filed to forfeit certain merchandise and money for fraudulent
importation, with intent to defraud the United States of duty, indictments were found against the
alleged importer and his wife; and on trial thereof the importer was acquitted, after which the
indictment against the wife was nolled, such nolle prosequi was not a judgment of acquittal and
was, therefore, no bar to the proceeding to forfeit as against the wife. U. S. v. A Lot of Precious
Stones and Jewelry, C.C.A.6 (Mich.) 1905, 134 F. 61, 68 C.C.A. 1. Customs Duties
133(8)
Owner's acquittal of two-count indictment charging that he smuggled and clandestinely
introduced into United States merchandise which should have been invoiced and that he
received, concealed and facilitated transportation after importation of merchandise which had
been brought into United States contrary to this section was a bar to any subsequent forfeiture
proceedings. U. S. v. Two Hundred and One, Fifty Pound Bags of Furazolidone, D.C.N.D.1971,
52 F.R.D. 222. Customs Duties
134
Acquittal on charge of smuggling and of illegal importation was not a bar to a proceeding in rem
to forfeit the goods for violation of former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section]. 1900, 23
Op.Atty.Gen. 63.
227. ---- Innocence of owner, defenses, forfeitures
Instrument of customs offenses may be forfeited even where owner of it is innocent. U.S. v.
Wing Leong, C.A.7 (Ill.) 1961, 287 F.2d 849. Customs Duties
130(1)
Owner's innocence was no defense against forfeiture of automobile, under former § 1593 of
Title 19 [now this section] and similar statutes, for smuggling liquor. U.S. v. One Lincoln
Touring Car, D.C.N.Y.1925, 11 F.2d 551. See, also, U.S. v. One Buick Automobile,
D.C.Cal.1924, 300 F. 584.
Innocent owner defense is not available under statute requiring civil forfeiture of merchandise
introduced into United States in violation of statute prohibiting making of false statements on
customs forms. U.S. v. An Antique Platter of Gold, S.D.N.Y.1997, 991 F.Supp. 222, affirmed
184 F.3d 131, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 978, 528 U.S. 1136, 145 L.Ed.2d 929. Customs Duties
130(10)
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 99
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
Purchaser of drugs seized by government as part of investigation into illegal diversion of drugs
from export market failed to show it was good faith, innocent purchaser and thus was not entitled
to compensation from government for retaining drugs until after their expiration date. Interstate
Cigar Co. v. U.S., Fed.Cl.1994, 32 Fed.Cl. 66. Health
331
228. Estoppel, forfeitures
Determination in prosecution for violation of this section prohibiting fraudulent or knowing
importation into the United States of any merchandise contrary to law that United States gold
coins which defendant allegedly imported without license were "merchandise" did not
collaterally estop the United States, in subsequent forfeiture proceedings, from characterizing the
coins as "currency". U.S. v. Two Hundred Fifty-Four U.S. Twenty Dollar Gold Coins,
E.D.Mich.1973, 355 F.Supp. 298. Judgment
559; United States
34
229. Summary judgment, forfeitures
Value of smuggled merchandise presented a question of fact precluding summary judgment in
government's civil action to recover penalties for unlawful importation of merchandise. U.S. v.
Wing Leong, C.A.7 (Ill.) 1961, 287 F.2d 849. Federal Civil Procedure
2494
In proceeding by United States for seizure of diamonds for forfeiture and condemnation on
ground that they were imported from abroad in violation of provisions of customs laws,
pleadings and affidavits failed to raise material issue of fact as to whether diamonds which were
seized on a domestic air flight, had been imported from abroad, and claimant's motion for
summary judgment would be sustained. U S v. 373.70 Carats of Cut, Polished, Rough and
Cleaved Diamonds, E.D.N.Y.1957, 148 F.Supp. 618. Federal Civil Procedure
2531;
Federal Civil Procedure
2539
230. Burden of proof, forfeitures
The burden of proof in a suit for forfeiture under former § 1593 of Title 19 [now this section]
was not on the claimant of the articles seized, unless there was probable cause for seizing them
and if at the close of the government's case there were not enough evidence to go to the jury,
there was not such probable cause as to put the burden of proof upon the claimant. U.S. v. One
Pearl Chain, S.D.N.Y.1904, 139 F. 510, affirmed 139 F. 513, 71 C.C.A. 500.
In a suit to condemn merchandise as forfeited, where the proofs show probable cause for the
seizure, and the claimant makes no offer to explain damaging circumstances, such as that the
goods were shipped under a false designation, and show when, where, how, or from whom he
acquired the ownership he claims, such withholding of evidence is a circumstance sufficient to
complete the case for the government, and casts the burden of proof upon the claimant. U.S. v.
Seven Hundred and Forty Tins of Opium, D.Wash.1891, 44 F. 798.
In libels involving book and magazines, containing contraceptive information, government could
not rely on § 1615 of Title 19 providing that in forfeiture proceedings of goods seized under
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 100
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
provisions of any law relating to collection of duties on imports or tonnage, burden should lie on
claimant, so as to impose burden on claimants to show that they had not "fraudulently or
knowingly" within meaning of former § 1593(b) of Title 19 [now this section] imported book
and magazines, where book and magazines were not seized under provisions of any law relating
to collection of duties on imports or tonnage. U.S. v. One Book, S.D.N.Y.1937, 19 F.Supp.
1017, modified 97 F.2d 510. Customs Duties
133(6)
231. Admissibility of evidence, forfeitures
Oral and written statements of driver of automobile sought to be forfeited were properly
excluded as hearsay in a forfeiture proceeding. U.S. v. Packard Sedan, D.C.Fla.1928, 23 F.2d
865. Evidence
318(1)
A letter written by a third party, whom the evidence tended to implicate, to other parties in China
two months after the seizure, apparently referring to the transaction, and left by the writer with
the claimant, who added a paragraph thereto, also seemingly referring to the transaction, and a
letter written by a Chinaman to another Chinaman in China, supposed to refer to passages in the
other letter, both letters being put in the same envelope, and directed and mailed to the party in
China, were admissible. Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Boxes of Opium v. U.S.,
C.C.Cal.1883, 23 F. 367, 9 Sawy. 259.
Declarations of the steward of a ship, on which it is claimed certain opium was smuggled, made
to the officers seizing such opium an hour after the seizure but while the opium was in their
possession near the place of seizure, waiting to be transported, were admissible, in an action to
condemn such opium, as part of the res gestae, though not made in the presence of, or by
authority or with the knowledge of, the claimant. Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty
Boxes of Opium v. U.S., C.C.Cal.1883, 23 F. 367, 9 Sawy. 259.
Statements made by one who for a time had possession of goods claimed as the property of
another, in respect to certain alleged violations of the customs laws made after he had parted
with the possession thereof were incompetent evidence, as being merely narrative or historical,
and in derogation of the title of the alleged owner. U.S. v. Lot of Jewelry, C.C.N.Y.1875, 26
F.Cas. 994, No. 15626. Customs Duties
133(6)
232. Weight and sufficiency of evidence, forfeitures
Evidence supported finding that horse in question had been smuggled into the United States.
U.S. v. One Sorrel Quarter Horse Mare Named "Kittygong", C.A.5 (Tex.) 1969, 407 F.2d 1334.
Customs Duties
133(6)
In suit to forfeit merchandise allegedly smuggled into the United States, proof that importer had
been found guilty of smuggling the merchandise authorized finding that the merchandise was
imported contrary to law and was subject to forfeiture. U.S. v. Eight Boxes Containing Various
Articles of Miscellaneous Merchandise, C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1939, 105 F.2d 896. Customs Duties
133(8)
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 101
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
In libel to forfeit automobile under customs laws, evidence showed whisky transported was of
foreign origin unlawfully introduced into United States. U.S. v. One Reo Coupé Automobile,
D.C.Mass.1931, 46 F.2d 815. Customs Duties
133(6)
Evidence did not show probable cause for forfeiture of automobile on ground that liquor found
therein was unlawfully imported. U.S. v. Packard Sedan, D.C.Fla.1928, 23 F.2d 865.
Intoxicating Liquors
250
In libel of vessel and cargo for fraudulently attempting to import liquor into United States,
evidence established that vessel, before challenge and seizure by Coast Guard, was bound for the
United States. The Vinces, E.D.S.C.1927, 20 F.2d 164, affirmed 27 F.2d 296, certiorari denied
49 S.Ct. 32, 278 U.S. 635, 73 L.Ed. 552.
Evidence showed unlawful importation of beer, authorizing seizure and forfeiture of automobile
used therein. Charles Zimmerman Sons Co. v. Ferguson, D.C.Mich.1926, 16 F.2d 604,
rehearing denied 18 F.2d 125. Customs Duties
133(6)
The finding of feathers of a kind the importation of which was prohibited in the possession of
claimant, in the absence of a consistent explanation, was probable cause, and sustained a
judgment of forfeiture. Feathers of Wild Birds v. U.S., C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1920, 267 F. 964,
certiorari denied 41 S.Ct. 14, 254 U.S. 643, 65 L.Ed. 453. Customs Duties
130(1)
Evidence was insufficient to warrant a finding as a matter of law that a passenger had
fraudulently attempted to import a pearl chain without declaring same, so as to authorize its
forfeiture for nonpayment of duty. One Pearl Chain v. U.S., C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1903, 123 F. 371,
59 C.C.A. 499.
A mere preponderance of evidence in a case by information to condemn smuggled goods, in
favor of the guilt of the transaction, will justify a decree of forfeiture. Three Thousand Eight
Hundred and Eighty Boxes of Opium v. U.S., C.C.Cal.1883, 23 F. 367, 9 Sawy. 259.
In libels involving books and magazines containing contraceptive information, wherein the
government relied on former § 1593(b) of Title 19 [now this section] merchandise should be
forfeited and offender fined and imprisoned, government's proof under said section had to be of
same character and weight as that necessary to convict of crime, and full force and effect must be
given to provision in said section defining crime as act "fraudulently or knowingly" committed,
though libels were civil suits. U.S. v. One Book, S.D.N.Y.1937, 19 F.Supp. 1017, modified 97
F.2d 510.
If the entry does not contain a part of the goods consigned by the same invoice and bill of lading,
it is prima facie evidence that the duties have not been paid. U S v. Certain Hogsheads of
Molasses, C.C.Mass.1852, 25 F.Cas. 365, No. 14766. Customs Duties
96
233. Direction of verdict, forfeitures
That the claimant, in an action to forfeit property seized for failure to declare the same for duty,
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 102
18 U.S.C.A. § 545
moved the court to direct a verdict in her favor, did not constitute a waiver of her right to reserve
exceptions to the refusal of her request to send the case to the jury after the denial of her motion
to direct. One Pearl Chain v. U.S., C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1903, 123 F. 371, 59 C.C.A. 499. Federal
Civil Procedure
2112; Trial
176
234. Judgment, forfeitures
On information by the United States against a cattle company for forfeiture of cattle for unlawful
importation, wherein individuals intervened and claimed the cattle or their value, judgment that
the interveners recover from the cattle company possession of the cattle, and, if they were not
delivered, recover a sum per head, the value as assessed for each head not delivered, was proper.
Morris Land & Cattle Co. v. Kilpatrick, C.C.A.Tex.1919, 256 F.2d 788.
235. Liens on goods, forfeitures
A carrier which transported smuggled goods has no lien on them for the freight, as against the
government, though innocent of the fraud. U S v. Fifty-Three Bales of Rags, D.C.Mass.1879, 25
F.Cas. 1081, No. 15097. Customs Duties
130(12)
18 U.S.C.A. § 545, 18 USCA § 545
Current through P.L. 110-17 approved 04-09-07
Copr. © 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
END OF DOCUMENT
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.