U.S. Customs Service

***Treasury Decisions***

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  19 CFR Parts 10, 12, 18, 24, 111, 113, 114,\
  125, 134, 145, 162, 171, and 172

  (T.D. 00-57)\
  RIN 1515-AC01
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

PETITIONS FOR RELIEF:\
SEIZURES, PENALTIES, AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **AGENCY:** U.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.

  **ACTION:** Final rule.

  **SUMMARY:** This document revises the Customs Regulations relating to
  the filing of petitions in penalty, liquidated damages, and seizure
  cases. Parts 171 and 172 of the Customs Regulations are recrafted in
  this rule to include petition processing in seizure and unsecured
  penalty cases under Part 171 and liquidated damages and secured penalty
  petition processing under Part 172. The document revises the
  regulations to allow more flexibility and useful contact with
  Government officials in an effort to make the administration of
  penalty, liquidated damages and seizure cases more efficient. These
  regulations eliminate needless or redundant provisions.

  **EFFECTIVE DATE:** October 5, 2000.

  **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:** Jeremy Baskin, Penalties Branch,
  Office of Regulations and Rulings, 202-927-2344.

  **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:**

   
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

BACKGROUND

Under the provisions of sections 618 and 623 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (19 U.S.C. 1618 and 1623), section 320 of title 46, United
States Code App. (46 U.S.C. App. 320), and section 5321 of title 31,
United States Code (31 U.S.C. 5321), the Secretary of the Treasury is
empowered to remit forfeitures, mitigate penalties, or cancel claims
arising from violation of Customs bonds upon terms and conditions that
he deems appropriate. Under sections 66 and 624 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 66 and 1624), the Secretary is authorized to
issue regulations necessary to carry out the provisions of the Tariff
Act. Consistent with that authority, Parts 171 (relating to seizures and
penalties) and 172 (relating to liquidated damages) of the Customs
Regulations (19 CFR Parts 171 and 172) were promulgated to provide for
the petitioning process in order to allow for the orderly remission of
forfeitures, mitigation of penalties, and cancellation of claims for
liquidated damages.

In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in the Federal Register (63
FR 5329) on February 2, 1998, Customs proposed to substantially revise
Parts 171 and 172 of the Customs Regulations relating to the filing of
petitions in penalty, liquidated damages, and seizure cases to make the
proposed regulations briefer and to allow more flexibility and useful
contact with government officials in an effort to administer cases in
the most efficient way possible. The amendments to the regulations were
also proposed to eliminate needless or redundant provisions.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL

Below is a summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:

1\. The scope of Parts 171 and 172 was proposed to be changed. Part 171,
as proposed, related to unsecured fines and penalties and all seizure
and forfeiture cases. Inasmuch as the payment of certain penalties is
guaranteed by the conditions of the International Carrier Bond and,
therefore, can involve demands against sureties, the provisions of Part
172 were proposed to be amended to relate to all claims for liquidated
damages and penalties secured by a bond. This proposed change would
guarantee that all such claims against sureties would be handled in a
consistent manner.

2\. The proposed regulations anticipated that electronic filing of
petitions is an inevitability even though Customs does not currently
have, on a nationwide basis, the capabilities to accept petitions
electronically. Accordingly, the proposed regulations reflected the
acceptance of electronic signatures and eliminated the requirement of
duplicate copies if an electronic petition is filed.

3\. The proposed regulations required that petitions for relief be
signed by the petitioner, his attorney-at-law or a Customs broker, but
would allow others, in certain non-commercial violations (such as
passenger/baggage-line violations), to file petitions on behalf of
non-English speaking claimants to property or other petitioners who have
some disability that may impede the ability to file a petition.
Instances have occurred where such petitions were rejected because they
did not meet the signature requirements of the current regulations. A
strict reading of the current regulations would bar Customs from
considering those petitions. This position caused needless delay in
administrative processing of cases. As proposed, the process would be
opened in these situations and efficiency would be promoted by allowing,
in non-commercial violations, a non-English speaking petitioner or
petitioner who has a disability which may impede his ability to file a
petition to enlist a family member or other representative to file a
petition on his behalf.

4\. Under the current regulations Customs may limit the petitioning
period to 7 days in cases involving violations of 19 U.S.C. 1592 when
the running of the statute of limitations is imminent. As Customs finds
no reason to limit the 7-day petitioning period option to just cases
involving violations of 19 U.S.C. 1592, it was proposed to extend the
7-day rule to all cases and clarify that it is 7 working days, rather
than calendar days.

5\. The regulatory section entitled \"Additional evidence required with
certain petitions\" was proposed to be eliminated as unnecessary. The
proposed new § 171.2 indicated that the claimant or petitioner must
establish a petitionable interest in seized property. How that proof is
presented is not a subject requiring control by regulation.

6\. The current regulations provide that there is a right to make an
oral presentation to seek relief from a penalty incurred for a violation
of 19 U.S.C. 1592 for which proceedings commenced after December 31,
1978, and that oral presentations seeking relief for other penalties
incurred may be allowed at the discretion of Customs. It was proposed to
simply remove the reference to cases commenced subsequent to December
31, 1978, as that provision has become obsolete with the passage of
time.

7\. Title VI of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation
Act (known commonly as the Customs Modernization Act) (Pub.L. 103-182,
107 Stat. 2057) amended the provisions of 19 U.S.C. 1595a(c) to provide
for the seizure and forfeiture of stolen property. This amendment
rendered current § 171.22(c) obsolete, as those provisions of the new
statute are applicable to any stolen property, not only that stolen in
Canada and brought into the United States. Accordingly, it was proposed
to eliminate that provision.

8\. Mitigation guidelines for monetary penalties assessed pursuant to 19
U.S.C. 1592 are currently published as Appendix B to Part 171 of the
Regulations. Since the guidelines are now published, the provisions of §
171.23 of the regulations, making these guidelines available upon
request, became obsolete and that section was proposed to be eliminated.

9\. The offices of Regional Commissioner and District Director were
eliminated under Customs reorganization; therefore, all references to
those offices and delegations of authority to those individuals to
decide petitions and supplemental petitions for relief became obsolete.
In Treasury Decision 95-78 (T.D. 95-78, 60 FR 48645, September 20,
1995), Customs published an Interim Rule which amended the regulations
and authorized Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officers to decide
petitions for relief, and certain designated Headquarters officials
assigned to field locations to decide supplemental and second
supplemental petitions for relief in certain cases (although the Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking proposed the elimination of second supplemental
petitions, as discussed later herein). T.D. 95-78 was later finalized by
Treasury Decision 99-27 (T.D. 99-27, 64 FR 13673, March 22, 1999).
Changes promulgated by the interim rule were reflected in the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking.

10\. Consistent with the Customs reorganization, it was proposed to
remove specific delegations of mitigation authority from the body of
regulatory text with the intention of affording the Secretary of the
Treasury and the Commissioner of Customs the opportunity to delegate
authority to decide petitions and supplemental petitions to the field
through delegation orders, without the necessity of amending the
regulations. It was contemplated that a separate document would be
published in the Federal Register detailing the new delegations.

11\. The provisions of Part 111 were proposed to be amended to eliminate
the requirement of Headquarters approval of broker penalty cases
assessed in excess of \$10,000.

12\. Novel or complex issues often arise concerning Customs policy with
regard to Customs actions or potential actions relating to seizures and
forfeitures, penalties (including penalty-based demands for duty),
liquidated damages or penalty assessment or mitigation in cases that are
otherwise within field jurisdiction because of the value of the property
or the amount of the penalty or claim for liquidated damages. In those
instances, Headquarters advice may need to be sought. Accordingly, it
was proposed to include a section in both Parts 171 and 172 to allow any
Customs officer or an alleged violator to initiate a request for advice
to be submitted to the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer for
forwarding to the Chief, Penalties Branch, Office of Regulations and
Rulings. It was proposed that the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures
Officer would retain the authority to refuse to forward any request that
fails to raise a qualifying issue and to seek legal advice from the
appropriate Associate or Assistant Chief Counsel in such cases.

13\. Under current policy, Customs officers may accept petitions filed
untimely in response to claims for liquidated damages. Those petitions
can be accepted at any time prior to commencement of any sanctioning
action against a bond principal or the issuance of any notice to show
cause against a surety. It was proposed to permit Customs to accept late
petitions in penalty cases as well, but, as articulated in guidelines
published for cancellation of bond charges (see T.D. 94-38, 59 FR 17830,
April 12, 1994), lateness in filing a petition was to be factored when
considering remission or mitigation of a claim and less generous relief,
if otherwise merited, was to be afforded to the petitioner who files in
an untimely manner.

14\. The courts have consistently held that a claim for liquidated
damages is not a \"charge or exaction\" which is properly the subject of
a protest filed pursuant to the authority of 19 U.S.C. 1514. See United
States v. Toshoku America, Inc., 879 F.2d 815 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Halperin
Shipping Co., Inc. v. United States, 14 CIT 438, 742 F. Supp. 1163
(1990). In light of these decisions, it was proposed to amend the
regulations to indicate that claims for liquidated damages and decisions
on petitions are not properly the subject of a protest filed pursuant to
19 U.S.C. 1514.

15\. In Trayco, Inc. v. United States, 994 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1993),
the Court permitted a company that had petitioned for relief, received a
decision on the petition and, although unhappy with the mitigation
offered, paid that mitigated amount \"under protest,\" to file suit to
recover the amount paid. The Court noted that as \"\* \* \* nothing in
the statute or regulations gives notice that a party may relinquish its
rights to judicial review by paying a mitigated penalty and filing a
second supplemental petition, we decline to hold that Trayco is stopped
where it accompanied its payment with a statement expressly reserving
its rights to judicial review.\" Id. at 839. Customs proposed to amend
the regulations to eliminate this regulatory gap and provide that any
payment made in compliance with a mitigation decision will act as an
accord and satisfaction where the paying party has elected to resolve
the case through the administrative process and has waived the right to
sue for a refund. It was proposed that this express statement be
included in all mitigation decisions offered to petitioners in order to
provide full disclosure as to their administrative or judicial rights.
According to the proposal, Customs will not accept payments \"under
protest.\"

16\. It was proposed to eliminate second supplemental petitions. As
proposed, payment of a mitigated amount would never be necessary to
receive original or appellate administrative review. If a petitioner
believes the underlying penalty was incorrectly assessed or the claim
improperly mitigated, he would not be required to pay and then later sue
for a refund of monies paid.

17\. The proposed regulations included a provision allowing the deciding
Customs official to reserve the right to require a waiver of the statute
of limitations executed by the claimants to the property or charged
party or parties as a condition precedent before accepting a
supplemental petition in any case if less than one year remains before
the statute of limitations may be asserted as a defense to all or part
of that case. Upon receipt of such a waiver, any reduced time period for
acceptance of a petition would not be necessary.

18\. Under current § 111.95, Customs Regulations, a final determination
of \$1,000 or less in response to a petition for relief in a case
involving assessment of a penalty for violation of the provisions of 19
U.S.C. 1641 could not be the subject of a supplemental petition. As
there is no basis to single out this particular violation as not being
worthy of a supplemental petition for relief, and as Customs believes
all parties should have the same administrative rights, it was proposed
to remove this restriction on the filing of supplemental petitions in
broker penalty cases.

19\. Sections 10.39(e) and (f) of the regulations, relating to the
filing of petitions in cases involving breaches of the terms and
conditions of temporary importation bonds (TIBs), provide for different
standards of review if there has been a default with respect to all of
the articles entered under bond or if there has been a default with
respect to part, but not all, of the articles entered under bond.
Because this bifurcation is unnecessary, it was proposed to combine the
provisions of §§ 10.39(e) and (f) to provide a single standard for
review of TIB petitions without regard to whether all or part of the
merchandise entered under the TIB are in breach.

20\. Current § 162.48, Customs Regulations, relating to the disposition
of perishable and low-value property, permits Customs, by the authority
granted in section 612 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended(19 U.S.C.
1612), to destroy summarily low-value seized property (less than
\$1,000) when the costs of storing and maintaining such property are
disproportionate to its value. Customs would then reimburse any
successful petitioning claimant from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. The
provisions of section 667 of the Customs Modernization Act removed this
\$1,000 cap and permitted the summary destruction of any seized
property, without regard to value, if the costs of maintaining such
property were disproportionate to its value. Section 162.48 was proposed
to be amended, consistent with this legislative change.

21\. Finally, the provisions of Part 162 were proposed to be amended to
specifically authorize Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officers to
accept waivers of the statute of limitations with regard to actual or
potential violations arising within their respective ports. It was
proposed that the Office of Regulations and Rulings would retain
authority to accept waivers in established actual cases over which it
has jurisdiction and a petition for relief has been filed.

Proposed conforming amendments to Parts 10, 12, 18, 24, 111, 113, 114,
125, 134, 145, and 162 were also set forth in the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking.

DISCUSSION OF COMMENTS

The February 2, 1998, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking made provision for
the submission of public comments on the proposed regulatory changes for
consideration before adoption of those changes as a final rule. The
prescribed comment period closed on April 3, 1998. A total of 18
responses to the solicitation of comments was received by Customs. The
comments submitted are summarized and responded to below.

*Comment:*

Five commenters are opposed to the combination of §§ 10.39(e) and 10.
39(f). The commenters state that current § 10.39(e) provides for relief
from liquidated damages involving breach of the terms and conditions of
the TIB when partial exportation or destruction of such merchandise
occurs. The commenters are of the view that the proposed recrafted
regulation would unfairly penalize importers on entire shipments when
only a small portion may not have been exported or destroyed in the
prescribed manner. Section 10.39(f) currently indicates that the amount
to be tendered is determined by the value of the goods involved in the
breach of the bond. The commenters assert that the proposed new
regulation would not do this and it is unclear as to the level of
liability for the importer when a partial exportation or destruction
occurs.

*Customs Response:*

The commenters\' fears are misplaced. First, the proposed amendment in
no way would change the provisions of § 10.39(d)(1), which governs
assessment of liquidated damages for failure to export or destroy TIB
merchandise in the time period prescribed by regulation. Claims will
still be assessed at two times or 110 percent of the estimated duties
applicable to the entry, depending on the HTSUS provision under which
entry is made. The proposed regulatory text would eliminate unnecessary
differences in the authority of the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures
Officer to act on a petition for relief with regard to those cases where
all of the merchandise covered under the TIB was not exported or
destroyed as opposed to those cases where partial exportation or
destruction occurred. The provisions of § 10.39(e)(1) through (e)(4),
relating to the standards to be considered when canceling the claim upon
payment of a lesser amount, are not being changed. Those standards will
be applied to partial breaches as well as breaches involving all
merchandise covered by a TIB entry. In accordance with this response,
Customs is proceeding with combining § 10.39(e) and § 10.39(f) in the
final regulatory text.

*Comment:*

Numerous commenters express the view that oral presentations should be
granted as a matter of right in all cases.

*Customs Response:*

Customs does not agree that oral presentations should be granted as a
matter of right in all cases, but does concede that reference to 19
U.S.C. 1593a(b)(2) regarding petitioning of penalties assessed for false
drawback claims was inadvertently excluded from this proposed
regulation. The provisions of 19 U.S.C. 1592(b)(2) and 19 U.S.C.
1593a(b)(2) specifically state that a person charged with a penalty
thereunder shall have reasonable opportunity under 19 U.S.C. 1618 to
make representations, both oral and written, seeking remission or
mitigation of the monetary penalty. For the most part, other statutes
enforced by Customs do not provide for such an opportunity. It would be
administratively burdensome to require Customs to hear oral
presentations in all violations for which cases are developed.
Accordingly, the regulations provide Customs with discretion to allow
oral conferences in other cases. However, the final regulatory text is
amended to include reference to 19 U.S.C. 1593a(b)(2).

*Comment:*

One commenter indicates that the regulations should be amended in a
manner to require Customs to act on petitions within 120 days. The
commenter states that when a petition is received, not much else has to
be done by Customs and there is no basis for continued delays.

*Customs Response:*

Customs does not agree. When a petition is received, an investigation
often must be undertaken in order to determine the veracity of
statements made in that petition. This can be a time consuming process,
particularly if information from foreign sources must be obtained.
Additionally, there are instances when a claimant to seized property or
a charged party asks that Customs delay a decision on a petition for
relief. If Customs is required to adhere to a rigid decision schedule,
it could work to the disadvantage of such a party. While Customs makes
every effort to decide petitions for relief as expeditiously as
possible, Customs sees no reason to amend the regulations to place a
strict time frame on the processing of petitions.

*Comment:*

A comment was received from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
indicating its concern that the provisions of proposed §§ 172.11 and
172.12 would authorize Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officers to
decide petitions for relief in cases involving the failure to redeliver
FDA-regulated merchandise which has been refused admission. There is a
concern that the Customs officers will not have the technical expertise
to make such a determination.

*Customs Response:*

Customs appreciates FDA\'s concern, but notes that the provisions of 21
CFR 1.97(b), which require FDA and Customs to be in agreement with
regard to the terms and conditions of cancellation of any bond charge
arising from the failure to comply with FDA admissibility requirements,
have not been overridden by these regulations. Fines, Penalties, and
Forfeitures Officers will still be required to forward all petitions for
relief in FDA cases to FDA and will follow the recommendation of FDA
with regard to the disposition of those cases consistent with the
regulations.

*Comment:*

Numerous commenters object to proposed § 171.2(e), which allows Customs
to reduce the time for filing a petition for relief to no less than
seven working days when fewer than 180 days remain from the date of
penalty notice or seizure before the statute of limitations may be
available as a defense. One commenter asks that the new regulations
commit Customs to making every effort to issue notices of penalty and
seizure within sufficient time so as to allow importers 30 days to file
petitions for relief. Another commenter claims that this provision would
interfere with a surety\'s right to investigate and raise appropriate
defenses, if any, before deciding to extend the statute of limitations.
The same commenter states that the surety should receive notice at the
same time the claim is made against the principal on the bond. If at
least 90 days remained before expiration of the statute of limitations,
the surety should receive the full 60 days to investigate the claim and
file a petition. In the alternative, the commenter suggests that Customs
accept limited waivers of the statute of limitations to enlarge the time
remaining to the full 180-day period. Finally, another commenter states
that Customs is now proposing to extend the 7-day petitioning period to
other types of cases when the running of the statute of limitations is
\"imminent.\" The commenter suggests that Customs define the term
\"imminent.\"

*Customs Response:*

Customs does not agree that this provision is onerous and should be
changed. It is noted that this provision is not a newly promulgated
exception from the usual 30 or 60-day time periods for the filing of
petitions for relief. This provision is basically unchanged from the
current regulations. Under current § 19 CFR 171.12(e), Customs may
shorten the petitioning period to 7 days if less than 180 days remains
before the statute of limitations is to run. Because the current
regulation does not distinguish between calendar or working days so as
to determine the appropriate length of that 7-day period, Customs has
clarified the length of this shortened petitioning period by expressly
indicating that 7 working days is the minimum time period for providing
a petition for relief.

Also, it should be noted that sureties have received and will continue
to receive courtesy copies of notices to principals of claims for
liquidated damages which are issued against any bond the sureties have
written. The proposed regulations, by combining liquidated damages case
processing with processing of penalties secured by bonds, insure that
sureties will also receive courtesy copies of penalty notices issued
against their bond principals when the sureties have written the
underlying International Carrier\'s Bond. If anything, notification to
sureties of potential liabilities has expanded.

There is no regulatory proscription against execution of waivers of the
statute of limitations which would enlarge the time to 180 days from the
date of issuance of the claim for liquidated damages in order to allow
for the full 60-day petitioning period.

While Customs certainly aspires to avoid having to curtail the time a
petitioner has to file a petition for relief and Customs attempts to
issue notices of penalty, seizure or claims for liquidated damages more
than 180 days prior to the running of the statute of limitations,
Customs concedes that on occasion these notices do not meet that time
frame. While Customs continues to strive to issue notices so as to
provide the claimant with full regulatory petitioning times, such notice
issuance is not always possible. Customs is of the view that
continuation of the current regulatory scheme provides a reasonable
method to allow for maximum administrative petitioning rights.

Further, the proposed regulatory text in § 171.2(e) includes language
indicating that if a penalty is assessed or a seizure is made and less
than 180 days remain from the date of the penalty notice or seizure
before the statute of limitations is available as a defense, the Fines,
Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer may specify in the notice a
reasonable period of time, but not less than 7 working days, for the
filing of a petition for relief. For the sake of clarity, Customs is
removing the phrase \"from the date of penalty notice or seizure\" and
is rephrasing the final regulatory text to indicate that the Fines,
Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer may specify in the seizure or penalty
notice a reasonable period of time for the filing of a petition for
relief.

Finally, the regulatory text does not include any reference to the
running of the statute of limitations being \"imminent.\" Rather, a time
certain of 180 days prior to the availability of the statute as an
affirmative defense is referenced. Customs sees no reason to define the
term \"imminent\" because it does not appear in the proposed regulation.

*Comment:*

Many commenters disagree with the proposal to eliminate second
supplemental petitions. They consistently claim that second supplemental
petitions serve an important function and provide a necessary level of
review. One commenter notes that the second supplemental petition is
particularly useful in vessel repair cases established for violation of
19 U.S.C. 1466, particularly when a protest decision on the vessel entry
liquidation reduces the loss of revenue to be collected on that entry.
As currently configured in 19 CFR 171.33(c)(2)(ii), the regulation
allows for the filing of a second supplemental petition within30 days
following an administrative or judicial decision with respect to entries
involved in the penalty case which reduces the loss of duties upon which
the mitigated penalty amount was based. The second supplemental petition
affords the petitioner the ability to obtain the proper mitigated
penalty amount. In vessel repair cases, the duty involved can often be
substantial. That same commenter goes on to argue that elimination of
the second supplemental petition would substantially reduce the
petitioner\'s ability to receive full mitigation. The only avenue for
further relief would be litigation, the least desirable alternative.

*Customs Response:*

Customs agrees that an avenue for relief should be available to the
party who must rely on an administrative or judicial decision which
would reduce the amount of administrative penalties; however, the second
supplemental petition, which requires full payment from that party prior
to Customs acceptance of that second supplemental petition, places a
substantial burden on that party when those same large sums are at
issue.

Accordingly, in acknowledgment of the need to provide an administrative
alternative to the party who would be affected by an administrative or
judicial decision, Customs has decided to amend the provisions of
proposed §§ 171.61 and 172.41 (relating to the filing of supplemental
petitions) to allow for the filing of a supplemental petition within60
days from an administrative or judicial decision with respect to entries
involved in the penalty case which reduces the loss of duties upon which
the mitigated penalty amount was based. This amendment would save
petitioning rights for the party who awaits another administrative
decision that would influence the outcome of its penalty case.

Notwithstanding the above, Customs remains of the view that the second
supplemental petition should be eliminated. Currently, the petitioner is
afforded up to two years after a decision on a supplemental petition for
relief to file a second supplemental petition. That is simply too long a
time to keep administrative matters open. Additionally, the Trayco court
viewed with disfavor the regulatory requirement of payment in compliance
with the decision on the supplemental petition for relief in order to
obtain the third level of administrative review.. Rather than prolong
the process, Customs is of the view that two administrative
opportunities provide sufficient levels of review for the charged party
or claimant to seized property.

*Comment:*

Numerous comments were received with regard to Customs\' proposal to
allow any Customs officer or alleged violator to initiate a request for
Headquarters advice with a Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer for
forwarding to the Chief, Penalties Branch, Office of Regulations and
Rulings. This advice request, as proposed, must relate to any novel or
complex issue arising concerning Customs policy regarding Customs
actions or potential actions relating to seizures and forfeitures,
penalties (including penalty-based demands for duty), liquidated damages
or case assessment or mitigation in cases that are otherwise within
field jurisdiction because of the value of the property or the amount of
the penalty or claim for liquidated damages. The Fines, Penalties, and
Forfeitures Officer would retain authority to refuse to forward any
request that fails to raise a qualifying issue and to seek advice from
the appropriate Associate or Assistant Chief Counsel in such cases.

Reaction to this proposed regulation ranged from strongly negative (with
one commenter stating \"the field office is typically the source of the
problem which the petitioner would like Headquarters to review, and
therefore is far too interested and biased a party to determine whether
that review is warranted\"; and referring to this as \"asking the fox to
guard the chicken coop\") to positively disposed, but cautious. The
latter group seeks the establishment of criteria for the referral to
Headquarters, seeing those criteria as being key to the effectiveness of
the change. Several commenters suggest that the regulations provide for
a right of appeal from the decision of the Fines, Penalties, and
Forfeitures Officer to refuse referral.

*Customs Response:*

Customs is of the view that sufficient safeguards and guarantees have
been written into the regulation to allay the fears that deserving
claimants will be barred from being heard. Concomitantly, the regulation
is drawn narrowly enough to prevent frivolous claims that Headquarters
review is required. The Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer is and
must be afforded discretion to refuse to forward a request that fails to
raise a qualifying issue, but he or she is also encouraged to seek legal
advice from Associate or Assistant Chief Counsel as to whether a request
does raise such a qualifying issue. The regulation was not designed to
permit Headquarters review of all petitions, nor is it necessary to
provide for appeal rights of a decision to disallow Headquarters review
of novel and complex issues. That would impose yet another
administrative layer to decide whether a claim should be heard at a
Headquarters level. That would clearly not promote administrative
efficiency.

Customs is also of the view that establishment in regulation of criteria
to be followed for the granting of Headquarters review would be
difficult. It is impossible to predict what issues might arise from
Customs policies. Unlike Applications for Further Review in the protest
process, mitigation decisions are acts of administrative discretion and
do not have precedential value. Facts underlying the issuance of claims
or the making of seizures can be very different yet involve the same
statutory violation. Decisions are made within published guideline
ranges. To allow further review of any act of administrative discretion
would involve Headquarters review of every decision. This is not the
intent of this regulatory change.

*Comment:*

Numerous commenters express objection to the proposal to eliminate
Customs Headquarters authorization of broker penalties when such
penalties are proposed for issuance in amounts in excess of \$10,000.

*Customs Response:*

When the Tariff and Trade Act of 1984 (Pub.L. 98-573) amended19 U.S.C.
1641 to provide for civil monetary penalties against brokers, Customs
agreed with the brokerage community that the novelty of these penalties
was such that Headquarters review of all proposed19 U.S.C. 1641
penalties was necessary so as to provide guidance to the field and to
identify those situations for which a penalty response was appropriate.
In Treasury Decision 86-161 (T.D. 86-161, 51 FR 30345, August 26, 1986;
corrected 51 FR 31760, September 5, 1986), Customs first published
broker penalty assessment and mitigation guidelines by adding Appendix C
to Part 171 to provide further guidance for field offices. A revision to
Appendix C was published in Treasury Decision 90-20 (T.D. 90-20, 55 FR
10056, March 19, 1990.) After approximately five years of experience in
assessing these penalties, Customs published Treasury Decision 91-77
(T.D. 91-77, 56 FR 46115, September 10, 1991), in which field offices
were empowered to issue broker penalties without Headquarters review
when the amount to be assessed did not exceed \$10,000. At that point,
it was believed that the agency had sufficient experience with these
penalties that Headquarters review was only necessary when the most
serious assessments were contemplated.

Customs is now of the view that Headquarters review of broker penalty
cases is unnecessary. Headquarters does not by regulation review the
issuance of any other type of penalty. There is no compelling reason to
continue to approve broker penalties of any size. The Penalties Branch,
Office of Regulations and Rulings, will review and decide supplemental
petitions for relief in broker penalty cases when the amount assessed
exceeds \$10,000, so Headquarters review will still be afforded in the
more serious cases.

*Comment:*

Some commenters indicate that it is unnecessary for Customs, by
regulation, to require proof of representation. One commenter suggests
that standards of local bar associations provide adequate protections.

*Customs Response:*

As Customs brokers may also represent parties that have been charged
with penalties or claims for liquidated damages or seek return of seized
property, standards of local bar associations do not provide adequate
protection. The local bar association would not have jurisdiction to
discipline a Customs broker. Because Customs concedes that not every
petition for relief need be accompanied by a statement of
representation, the proposed regulation left this requirement to the
discretion of the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer.
Accordingly, no change is made to the proposed regulations based on
these comments.

*Comment:*

One commenter is extremely concerned about unauthorized filing of
petitions and believes that petitions should be signed only by an
attorney or a Customs broker. The commenter suggests that proposed §
171.1(b), which would allow a corporation\'s petition to be signed by
\"an officer or responsible supervisory official or a representative of
the corporation,\" would allow anyone claiming to be a representative to
sign a petition. In the view of the commenter, virtually every
significant commercial penalty claim involves a corporation and the
proposed regulatory text would eliminate any and all restrictions with
regard to individuals signing on behalf of corporations.

*Customs Response:*

Customs disagrees with the commenter that signing of petitions by
corporations should be limited to attorneys or Customs brokers because a
principal can always act on its own behalf. Customs believes that when a
corporation is the petitioner, it clearly can have a petition signed by
an officer. Customs also believes that a large corporation may not want
to require that a petition be signed by an officer in all cases and may
want the flexibility to allow a responsible individual in a supervisory
position or other responsible employee (such as a claims examiner) to be
able to act on its behalf. Customs does agree, however, with the
commenter that the proposed language may be too broad in seeming to
allow any individual claiming to be a \"representative\" of the
corporation to sign a petition for the corporation. Because the language
as proposed may be read too broadly, Customs is modifying the proposed
\"representative of the corporation\" language in the final rule to
provide that a \"responsible employee representative\" as well as an
officer or responsible individual in a supervisory position may sign a
petition for a corporation.

*Comment:*

Proposed § 172.43 states that Customs may require a waiver of the
statute of limitations as a condition precedent prior to consideration
of a supplemental petition for relief if the statute will be available
as a defense to all or part of a case within one year from the date of
decision on an original petition for relief. One commenter suggests that
this proposed language only relieves Customs from its duty to issue
demands timely. It is averred that unless Customs is held accountable
for issuing timely decisions on the original petition, there is no
impetus for Customs to decide claims promptly.

*Customs Response:*

Customs does not agree with this analysis. The statute of limitations
may loom as a defense for many reasons, not just because Customs did not
issue a demand timely. Customs seeks the statute of limitations waiver
to encourage the orderly processing of the case so as to avoid
litigation. It is not now, nor has it ever been, Customs policy to delay
without good cause issuance of any claim. The claimant can always refuse
to provide the statute of limitations waiver and the matter can be
referred for commencement of a judicial action.

*Comment:*

One commenter suggests that proposed § 172.22(b), relating to the
payment of mitigation amounts acting as an accord and satisfaction,
could compromise the rights of a surety in that it would force the
surety to settle a claim because, being threatened with sanction, the
surety would have to choose between obtaining a preliminary injunction
or protesting the payment.

*Customs Response:*

Customs does not agree with the commenter. A surety is provided with
courtesy copies of original demands on bond principals. When the bond
principal either fails to respond or exhausts its administrative rights
and does not comply with decisions on any petitions for relief, a demand
on surety is issued and the surety is afforded all petitioning rights.
Once the surety is provided with a mitigation decision, if the surety
refuses to pay and has raised a justiciable issue, Customs will commence
a collection action and the surety may have its day in court. Customs is
not of the view that application of the principles of accord and
satisfaction to any single payment in compliance with a mitigation
decision is an event that will force the surety either to comply or go
to court to avoid sanction. Accordingly, Customs believes that the
regulation should be adopted as proposed.

*Comment:*

Another commenter strongly opposes the provisions of proposed § 171.23.
The commenter states that the government will exercise greater care when
it knows that its decision may be reviewed by the courts. The commenter
believes that the court will only review the question of whether a
violation occurred, not the mitigation. The commenter indicates that the
government should welcome rather than oppose the court\'s view of
whether a violation occurred.

*Customs Response:*

Customs does not intend to deny a charged party its day in court. After
Customs determines that a violation has occurred and assesses and
mitigates a penalty, effects a seizure and remits a forfeiture, or
assesses a claim for liquidated damages and cancels the claim upon
payment of a lesser amount, all in accordance with the administrative
procedure, there will be no coercion to pay. If a party wishes to have
its day in court it can inform Customs that it will not pay and can wait
for judicial action to be commenced.

However, Customs believes that once a party agrees to pay an
administratively determined mitigation, remission or cancellation
amount, the party should not be permitted also to pursue the matter in
the courts. This has always been Customs view-a party can choose between
administrative proceedings and judicial proceedings. This view was not,
however, reflected in the regulations. Section 171.23 was proposed in
reaction to the court\'s statement in Trayco, supra., that \"nothing in
the statute or regulations gives notice that a party may relinquish its
rights to judicial review by paying a mitigated penalty.\" The proposed
regulation, once adopted, will serve to give the notice that the court
stated was missing, in that payment of a penalty will act as an accord
and satisfaction and bar judicial review.

It is noted that if a party chooses to pay the mitigated penalty,
forfeiture remission amount or bond claim cancellation amount, one still
has the right to pursue the administrative proceeding by filing a
supplemental petition for relief.

*Comment:*

One commenter representing sureties objects to proposed § 172.13(c),
which states that no action shall be taken on any petition from a
principal or surety if received after issuance of a notice to show cause
is issued to a surety.

*Customs Response:*

Customs will soon be issuing procedures with regard to the nonacceptance
of bonds from delinquent sureties. Those procedures include the issuance
of notices to show cause. They are being formulated with considerable
consultation with the surety community. At the time a notice to show
cause is issued to a surety, the surety will have already received at
least six notifications of the existence of the claim. Customs does not
agree that failure to accept a petition at that late a juncture in the
administrative proceedings will place a chilling effect on meaningful
exchanges.

*Comment:*

One commenter suggests that in proposed § 171.1(c)(4), Customs should
not require proof of a petitionable interest in seized property from an
importer of record. The commenter suggests that this provision be
amended to allow any party who may act as importer of record to file a
petition for remission of a forfeiture without additional proof of a
petitionable interest in the property.

*Customs Response:*

Customs does not agree. While Customs concedes that in the overwhelming
number of cases, the importer of record will have a petitionable
interest in any seized merchandise, there are situations where a Customs
broker filing an entry as a nominal importer of record will have no
petitionable interest in the merchandise being entered. As such, it
would not be appropriate to include regulatory text that would
automatically confer upon an importer of record a petitionable interest
in seized property.

*Comment:*

One commenter suggests that the provisions of proposed § 171.21 should
require a written decision with regard to a petition submitted in
response to an alleged violation of 19 U.S.C. 1595a

*Customs Response:*

Sections 19 U.S.C. 1592, 1593a and 1641 all specifically provide that a
written statement which sets forth the final determination and the
findings of fact and conclusions of law on which such determination is
based must be issued. Customs is of the view that the agency should not
identify through rulemaking other violations for which written decisions
will or will not be given as a matter of right. However, Customs
endeavors to issue written decisions in response to all petitions,
regardless of the underlying violation.

Customs notes that the proposed rule inadvertently omitted a reference
to 19 U.S.C. 1593a in this section. The regulatory text has been amended
to so include that statute in this provision.

*Comment:*

One commenter disagrees with the certification by Customs pursuant to
the Regulatory Flexibility Act that the provisions of the proposed
regulatory amendments, if adopted, will not have a substantial impact on
a number of small entities. The commenter states that there is no
credible support for the statement that small business entities are
rarely repeat violators of Customs laws and, therefore, will seldom need
to avail themselves of these regulatory provisions and file petitions
for relief on a regular basis. The commenter provides anecdotal evidence
that it had a bond principal that was a small entity that had seven
delinquent liquidated damages claims. The commenter goes on to state
that common sense suggests that small companies are frequent violators
of the customs laws and are substantially and directly affected by the
proposed regulations.

*Customs Response:*

Customs does not deny that some small businesses will be affected by
these regulations. The statement included in the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking did not state that small companies would never be impacted,
but that there would not be a significant impact on a substantial number
of small entities. Prompted by the commenter\'s concern, Customs, to
verify its certification statement, reviewed all claims for liquidated
damages (the most common sort of violation that would be incurred by a
small entity) in a large port for Fiscal Year 1998. Some 830 violators
were identified. Those 830 violators incurred 1,690 claims for
liquidated damages, an average of two per entity. Only 34 entities
incurred more than 5 claims for liquidated damages and of those 34
entities more than two-thirds were large transportation companies and
retailers, clearly not small businesses. Of those 830 identified
violators, (which is an unknown percentage of all businesses that deal
with Customs in some form or fashion, many of whom incur no liabilities
whatsoever and don\'t appear in any list of violators), only 11 could be
identified as small businesses-slightly over one percent. In light of
this sampling, Customs remains of the view that these amendments will
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

*Comment:*

One commenter indicates that it would be opposed to the provisions of
proposed § 172.33 (which permits Customs, as a condition to accepting an
offer in compromise, to require that the offeror enter into any
collateral agreement or post security which is deemed necessary for the
protection of the interest of the United States), if such an provision
is intended to extend the period in which the surety would be liable,
either by request for extension of the statute of limitations or other
means.

*Customs Response:*

The commenter should be assured that Customs does not intend, through
promulgation of this section, to extend the statute of limitations or to
otherwise compromise any rights that a party may have to raise any
defenses with regard to any claim brought against it.

*Comment:*

One commenting surety representative indicates that Customs had recently
adopted a policy whereby any mitigation offered to a bond principal (and
not acted on by it) would be described in the first demand on surety,
and made available to the surety as a basis for settlement. The
commenter urges that the revised regulation provide that this
information be included in the first demand on surety and that the
surety be offered a reasonable opportunity to accept the mitigation
offered. In that same vein, other commenters suggest that the proposed
regulatory text of §§ 171.62(a) and 172.42(a) be amended to add the
following language: \"In no event can the reviewing official grant less
relief than contained in the decision on the original petition for
relief.\" It is averred that this protects petitioners from the risk of
having to pay a higher penalty merely by exercising the due process
right of an administrative review of the original decision.

*Customs Response:*

Customs does not agree with either of these comments. As to the comment
of the surety, Customs offers mitigation as a matter of administrative
discretion. While in the vast majority of cases the mitigation offered
to the bond principal will be offered to the principal\'s surety,
Customs does not want its mitigation policies to be dictated by
regulation.

The same logic applies to Customs rejection of the proposed language
limiting mitigation authority when considering a supplemental petition
for relief. Facts may arise that were not available when considering the
original petition for relief that would call for less generous
mitigation when considering a supplemental petition for relief. As a
matter of policy, Customs does not grant less generous mitigation upon
review of a supplemental petition for relief than was afforded on the
original petition without an articulable reason for doing so. The filing
of a supplemental petition for relief questioning the decision on the
original petition is never, in and of itself, an adequate reason to
grant less generous relief than was afforded on the original petition. A
petitioner should never be penalized for the mere act of filing a
supplemental petition for relief. In order to safeguard against abuses
of this type, Customs affords review of supplemental petitions for
relief by officials other than those deciding the original petition.
Customs cannot agree to the proposed regulatory language barring the
granting of less generous mitigation in all situations inasmuch as such
language would interfere with the exercise of administrative discretion.

*Comment:*

Finally, numerous commenters object to Customs elimination of
specifically enumerated delegations of authority within the language of
the regulations. One commenter states that the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking stated that additional authority is to be delegated to the
Customs ports to render decisions on petitions and supplemental
petitions. The commenter suggests that such further delegation will only
magnify a problem of lack of uniformity between ports.

*Customs Response:*

Customs notes that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposed to remove
specific delegations of mitigation authority from the body of the
regulatory text with the intention of affording the Secretary of the
Treasury and the Commissioner of Customs the opportunity to delegate
authority to decide petitions and supplemental petitions through
delegation orders without the necessity of amending the regulations. The
Notice also stated that a separate document would be published in the
Federal Register detailing new delegations. It is unclear how any
further delegations of authority will only magnify a problem of lack of
uniformity between ports, as the commenter suggests. All ports function
under the same delegations. Rather than causing a lack of uniformity,
those delegations promote uniformity. Accordingly, Customs disagrees
with the comments and will publish this proposed regulatory text without
change.

*Comment:*

Customs notes that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposed to remove
specific delegations of mitigation authority from the body of the
regulatory text with the intention of affording the Secretary of the
Treasury and the Commissioner of Customs the opportunity to delegate
authority to decide petitions and supplemental petitions through
delegation orders without the necessity of amending the regulations. The
Notice also stated that a separate document would be published in the
Federal Register detailing new delegations. It is unclear how any
further delegations of authority will only magnify a problem of lack of
uniformity between ports, as the commenter suggests. All ports function
under the same delegations. Rather than causing a lack of uniformity,
those delegations promote uniformity. Accordingly, Customs disagrees
with the comments and will publish this proposed regulatory text without
change.

CONCLUSION AND OTHER CHANGES

After analysis of the comments and further review of the matter, Customs
has determined to adopt the amendments proposed in the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking published in the Federal Register (63 FR 5329) on
February 2, 1998, with the changes mentioned in the comment discussion
and with the following additional changes that are necessary to bring
consistency to the regulations or to remove unnecessary language:

1\. Customs has removed § 113.46 from the regulatory text. As Customs is
not setting forth guidelines relating to cancellation of bond charges
resulting from failure to produce documents in the regulations and is
not directing the reader to the location of these guidelines, this
language is unnecessary.

2\. Customs has reviewed the last sentence of proposed § 171.3(a) and
has determined that said sentence is unnecessary. Proposed § 171.3(a)
discusses the arrangement of oral presentations in cases involving
alleged violations of 19 U.S.C. 1592. In the current regulation, it was
necessary to define when a proceeding was commenced because of the
change in the underlying statute promulgated in 1978. Therefore, through
the passage of time the sentence has become obsolete and has been
eliminated.

3\. The provisions of proposed § 171.64 contain an error. The language
of the regulation indicates that the deciding official reserves the
right to require a waiver as a condition precedent before accepting a
petition for relief or supplemental petition for relief in any case
where the statute of limitations will be available as a defense within
one year from the date of the decision on the original petition for
relief. Requirement of a waiver cannot be a condition precedent to the
acceptance of an original petition for relief, provided the statute will
be available as a defense within one year from the date of the decision
on that petition. The regulation has been amended to eliminate the
reference to petitions. The regulation is now consistent with the
provisions of § 172.43.

In reviewing the provisions of proposed § 162.81, Customs is of the view
that the ministerial acts involving the processing of statute of
limitations waivers are operational in nature and need not be the
subject of regulation. Accordingly, that proposed section has been
removed from the final document.

5\. In the regulatory text of proposed §§ 171.13(a) and 172.13(a),
Customs indicated that late petitions could be accepted if the deciding
official, in his or her discretion, believed the efficient
administration of justice would be met. Upon further review of this
proposed regulation, Customs has decided that codification of the
acceptance of untimely petitions in penalty, seizure and liquidated
damages cases could be construed by claimants to seized property and
alleged violators as bestowing a right to file a late petition. While
Customs concededly, as a matter of policy, has accepted late petitions
in claims for liquidated damages cases and merely afforded less generous
mitigation, Customs has decided that such a decision should remain a
matter of policy and should not be included in regulation. Accordingly,
in the final regulatory text, proposed §§ 171.13(a) and 172.13(a) have
been removed. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of proposed § 171.13 have been
redesignated in the final text as paragraphs (a) and (b). Paragraphs (b)
and (c) in proposed § 172.13 have been redesignated in the final text as
paragraphs (a) and (b).

6\. Customs has also removed proposed § 171.32 from the final regulatory
text and redesignated proposed § 171.33 as § 171.32. Customs
Headquarters will retain all offer acceptance authority, still subject
to the approval of the General Counsel of the Treasury or his delegee,
in cases administered under Part 171. The proposed regulatory text
regarding authority to accept offers in cases administered under Part
172 has not been changed in the final document.

7\. The proposed regulatory texts in §§ 171.1 and 172.2 did not make it
clear that Customs can require that petitions and any documents
submitted in support of petitions be in English or have English
translations provided. Accordingly, language has been added to both of
the noted regulations to clarify this requirement.

8\. The proposed regulatory texts in §§ 171.14 and 172.14 have been
amended to reflect the fact that Headquarters advice regarding actual
duty loss tenders determined by Customs pursuant to § 162.74(c) of the
Customs Regulations relating to prior disclosure and actual duty loss
demands made under § 162.79b of the Customs Regulations are outside the
scope of those particular regulations. The last sentence of § 162.79b
will be retained. This section will continue to provide for Headquarters
review of any determination of actual loss of duties in which a §
1592(d) demand has been made and there is no penalty assessment, the
assessed penalty is remitted in full or the penalty amount (or mitigated
penalty) has been paid.

9\. The proposed regulatory text in § 10.39(e) has been amended to
indicate that the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer may cancel
Temporary Importation Bond liquidated damages liability upon payment of
a lesser amount in accordance with delegated authority. The proposed
version of this section did not include this limiting language and
apparently gave unintended full claim cancellation authority to Fines,
Penalties, and Forfeiture Officers in these situations.

10\. The proposed rule overlooked the provisions of § 12.8 of the
Customs Regulations regarding claims for liquidated damages for failure
to comply with meat inspection requirements. Customs is amending § 12.8
to conform with the provisions of Part 172.

11\. In the fourth sentence of § 162.74(c) the word \"demanded\" is
removed and replaced with the word \"determined\". In prior disclosure,
Customs does not \"demand\" the actual loss of revenue. Rather, the
disclosing party tenders the duty to perfect the prior disclosure.

12\. Consistent with the current practice of removing unnecessary
footnotes, Part 18 of the Customs Regulations has been amended by
removing footnote 9 which relates to § 18.24(a).

13\. On Wednesday, March 15, 2000, Customs published Treasury Decision
00-17 (T.D. 00-17) in the Federal Register (65 FR 13880), amending the
regulations relating to Customs brokers. In that document, the
provisions of 19 CFR 111.92 and 111.93 explain the process involving
issuance of monetary penalties for violations of the laws and
regulations relating to Customs brokers. For purposes of clarity, this
document has redesignated the existing text of § 111.92 as paragraph (a)
with minor changes and added a new paragraph (b) to distinguish between
pre-penalty and penalty notices. Also, provisions of Appendix C to Part
171 of the Customs Regulations which announce guidelines for the
imposition and mitigation of penalties for violation of 19 U.S.C. 1641
have been amended to remove sections which are not consistent with
regulatory changes promulgated in T.D. 00-17.

It is also noted that Customs is publishing in this issue of the Federal
Register a separate document that details delegations of authority to
decide petitions and supplemental petitions submitted pursuant to Part
171 and Part 172 of the Customs Regulations.

REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT

In as much as small business entities are infrequently repeat violators
of Customs laws, and, therefore, will seldom need to avail themselves of
the these regulatory provisions and file petitions for relief on a
regular basis, it is certified, pursuant to the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), that these amendments
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Accordingly, the amendments are not subject to the
regulatory analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12866

This document does not meet the criteria for a \"significant regulatory
action\" under E.O. 12866.

LIST OF SUBJECTS

19 CFR Part 10

Alterations, Bonds, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Imports,
Preference programs, Repairs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Trade agreements.

19 CFR Part 12

Bonds, Customs duties and inspection, Labeling, Marking, Prohibited
merchandise, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Restricted
merchandise, Seizure and forfeiture, Trade agreements.

19 CFR Part 18

Bonds, Customs duties and inspection, Penalties, Prohibited merchandise,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

19 CFR Part 24

Accounting, Claims, Customs duties and inspection, Financial and
accounting procedures, Harbors, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Trade agreements.

19 CFR Part 111

Administrative practice and procedure, Bonds, Brokers, Customs duties
and inspection, Imports, Licensing, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

19 CFR Part 113

Bonds, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Foreign commerce and
trade statistics, Freight, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

19 CFR Part 114

Carnets, Customs duties and inspection.

19 CFR Part 125

Bonds, Customs duties and inspection, Freight, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

19 CFR Part 134

Country of origin, Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Labeling,
Marking, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

19 CFR Part 145

Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Mail, Postal service, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

19 CFR Part 162

Administrative practice and procedure, Customs duties and inspection,
Law enforcement, Penalties, Prohibited merchandise, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Seizures and forfeitures.

19 CFR Part 171

Administrative practice and procedure, Customs duties and inspection,
Law enforcement, Penalties, Seizures and forfeitures.

19 CFR Part 172

Administrative practice and procedure, Customs duties and inspection,
Penalties.

AMENDMENTS TO THE REGULATIONS

For the reasons stated above, parts 10, 12, 18, 24, 111, 113, 114, 125,
134, 145, 162, 171, and 172, Customs Regulations (19 CFR parts 10, 12,
18, 24, 111, 113, 114, 125, 134, 145, 162, 171, and 172), are amended as
set forth below.

PART 10-ARTICLES CONDITIONALLY FREE,\
SUBJECT TO A REDUCED RATE, ETC.

1\. The general authority citation for Part 10, Customs Regulations (19
CFR Part 10) continues to read as follows:

**Authority:** 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 20, Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States), 1321, 1481, 1484, 1498, 1508, 1623,
1624, 3314.

\* \* \* \* \* \* \*

2\. Section 10.39 is amended by removing paragraph (f) and redesignating
current paragraph (g) and (h), respectively, as paragraphs (f) and (g)
and by revising the introductory paragraph of § 10.39(e) to read as
follows:

**§ 10..39 Cancellation of bond charges.**

\* \* \* \* \* \* \*

\(e\) If there has been a default with respect to any or all of the
articles covered by the bond and a written petition for relief is filed
as provided in Part 172 of this chapter, it will be reviewed by the
Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer having jurisdiction in the
port where the entry was filed. If the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures
Officer is satisfied that the importation was properly entered under
Chapter 98, subchapter XIII, and that there was no intent to defraud the
revenue or delay the payment of duty, the Fines, Penalties, and
Forfeitures Officer may cancel the liability for the payment of
liquidated damages in any case in his or her delegated authority as
follows:

\* \* \* \* \* \* \*

PART 12-SPECIAL CLASSES OF MERCHANDISE

1\. The general authority citation and relevant specific authority
citations for Part 12, Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 12) continue to
read as follows:

**Authority:** 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 20,
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1624.

\* \* \* \* \* \* \*

Sections 12.95 through 12.103 also issued under 15 U.S.C. 1241-1245;

\* \* \* \* \* \* \*

2\. Section 12.8(b) is amended by removing the number \"\$100,000\" and
by replacing it with the phrase \"the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures
Officer\'s delegated authority\".

3\. Section 12.102 is amended by removing the number \"60\" and adding
in its place the number \"30\".

PART 18-TRANSPORTATION IN BOND AND\
MERCHANDISE IN TRANSIT

1\. The general authority citation for Part 18, Customs Regulations (19
CFR Part 18) is revised to read as follows and the specific authority
for § 18.8 is removed:

**Authority:** 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 20,
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1551, 1552, 1553,
1623, 1624.

\* \* \* \* \* \* \*

2\. Section 18.8(d) is revised to read as follows:

**§ 18.8 Liability for shortage, irregular delivery, or nondelivery;
penalties.**

\* \* \* \* \* \* \*

\(d\) In any case in which liquidated damages are imposed in accordance
with this section and the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer is
satisfied by evidence submitted to him with a petition for relief filed
in accordance with the provisions of Part 172 of this chapter that any
violation of the terms and conditions of the bond occurred without any
intent to evade any law or regulation, the Fines, Penalties, and
Forfeitures Officer, in accordance with delegated authority, may cancel
such claim upon the payment of any lesser amount or without the payment
of any amount as may be deemed appropriate under the law and in view of
the circumstances.

\* \* \* \* \* \* \*

3\. Section 18.24 is amended by removing footnote 9.

PART 24-CUSTOMS FINANCIAL AND\
ACCOUNTING PROCEDURE

1\. The general authority citation for Part 24, Customs Regulations (19
CFR Part 24) continues to read as follows:

**Authority:** 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 58a-58c, 66, 1202 (General Note
20, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1505, 1624; 26
U.S.C. 4461, 4462; 31 U.S.C. 9701;

\* \* \* \* \* \* \*

2\. The first sentence of § 24.24(h)(3) is amended by removing the
phrase \"published pursuant to the provisions of § 172.22(d)(1) of this
chapter\".

PART 111-CUSTOMS BROKERS

1\. The general authority citation for Part 111, Customs Regulations (19
CFR Part 111) continues to read as follows:

**Authority:** 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 20, Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States), 1624, 1641.

\* \* \* \* \* \* \*

2\. Section 111.92 is revised to read as follows:

**§ 111.92 Notice of monetary penalty.**

a\) Pre-penalty notice. If assessment of a monetary penalty under §
111.91 is contemplated, Customs will issue a written notice which
advises the broker or other person of the allegations or complaints
against him and explains that the broker or other person has a right to
respond to the allegations or complaints in writing within 30 days of
the date of mailing of the notice. The Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures
Officer has discretion to provide additional time for good cause.

\(b\) Penalty notice. If the broker or other person files a timely
response to the written notice of the allegations or complaints, the
Fines, Penalties, and Forfeiture Officer will review this response and
will either cancel the case, issue an notice of penalty in an amount
which is lower than that provided for in the written notice of
allegations or complaints or issue a notice of penalty in the same
amount as that provided in the written notice of allegations or
complaints. If no response is received from the broker or other person,
the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer will issue a notice of
penalty in the same amount as that provided in the written notice of
allegations or complaints.

3\. Section 111.93 is amended by removing the reference to A111.92\" and
adding in its place, \"111.92(b)\".

PART 113-CUSTOMS BONDS

1\. The general authority citation and relevant specific authority
citation for Part 113, Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 113) continue to
read as follows:

**Authority:** 19 U.S.C. 66, 1623, 1624.

> Subpart E also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1484, 1551, 1565.

2\. Section 113.46 is removed.

3\. Section 113.52 is amended by removing the words \"and 172.22(c)\"
from the parenthetical phrase contained therein.

4\. Section 113.54(a) is amended by removing \"172.31\" and adding in
its place \"172.11(b)\".

PART 114-CARNETS

1\. The general authority citation for Part 114, Customs Regulations (19
CFR Part 114) continues to read as follows:

**Authority:** 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 20, Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States), 1623, 1624.

2\. Section 114.34(c) is amended by removing the final non-parenthetical
sentence and the final parenthetical sentence.

PART 125-CARTAGE AND LIGHTERAGE OF MERCHANDISE

1\. The general authority citation and relevant specific authority
citation for Part 125, Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 125) continue to
read as follows:

**Authority:** 19 U..S.C. 66, 1565, 1624.

\* \* \* \* \* \* \*

Sections 125.41 and 125.42 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1623..

2\. Section 125.42 is revised to read as follows:

**§ 125.42 Cancellation of liability.**

The Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer, in accordance with
delegated authority, may cancel liquidated damages incurred under the
bond of the foreign trade zone operator, containing the bond conditions
set forth in § 113.73 of this chapter, or under the bond of the cartman,
lighterman, bonded carrier, bonded warehouse operator, container station
operator or centralized examination station operator on Customs Form
301, containing the bond conditions set forth in § 113.63 of this
chapter, upon the payment of such lesser amount, or without the payment
of any amount, as the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer may deem
appropriate under the circumstances. Application for cancellation of
liquidated damages incurred shall be made in accordance with the
provisions of Part 172 of this chapter.

PART 134-COUNTRY OF ORIGIN MARKING

1\. The general authority citation for Part 134, Customs Regulations (19
CFR Part 134) continues to read as follows:

**Authority:** 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 20,
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1304, 1624.

2\. Section 134.54 is amended by removing in paragraph (a) the phrase
\", plus any estimated duty thereon as determined at the time of
entry\"; and by removing the second sentence in paragraph (b).

PART 145-MAIL IMPORTATIONS

1\. The general authority citation and relevant specific authority
citation for Part 145, Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 145) continue to
read as follows:

**Authority:** 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 20, Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States), 1624.

Section 145.4 also issued under 18 U.S.C. 545, 19 U.S.C. 1618;

\* \* \* \* \* \* \*

2\. Section 145.4(b) is revised to read as follows:

**§ 145.4 Dutiable merchandise without declaration or invoice,
prohibited merchandise, and merchandise imported contrary to law.**

\* \* \* \* \* \* \*

b\) Mitigation of forfeiture. Any claimant incurring a forfeiture of
merchandise for violation of this section may file a petition for relief
pursuant to Part 171 of this chapter. Mitigation of that forfeiture may
occur consistent with mitigation guidelines.

\* \* \* \* \* \* \*

PART 162-INSPECTION, SEARCH, AND SEIZURE

1\. The general authority citation and relevant specific authority
citation for Part 162, Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 162) continue to
read as follows:

**Authority:** 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1624.

\* \* \* \* \* \* \*

Section 162.48 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1606, 1607, 1608, 1612,
1613b, 1618;

\* \* \* \* \* \* \*

2\. Section 162.48 is amended by revising the section heading and the
heading of paragraph (b) to read as follows and by removing from the
first sentence in paragraph (b) the phrase \"and such value is less than
\$1,000,\":

**§ 162.48 Disposition of perishable and other seized property.**

\* \* \* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) Disposition of other seized property.

\* \* \* \* \* \* \*

3\. The fourth sentence of § 162.74(c) is amended by removing the word
\"demanded\" and replacing it with the word \"determined\".

PART 171-FINES, PENALTIES, AND FORFEITURES

1\. The general authority citation for Part 171, Customs Regulations (19
CFR Part 171) is revised to read as follows:

**Authority:** 19 U.S.C. 66, 1592, 1593a, 1618, 1624; 22 U.S.C. 401;31
U.S.C. 5321; 46 U.S.C. App. 320.

\* \* \* \* \* \* \*

2\. Section 171.0 is revised to read as follows:

**§ 171.0 Scope.**

This part contains provisions relating to petitions for relief from
fines, forfeitures, and certain penalties incurred, and petitions for
the restoration of proceeds from sale of seized and forfeited property.
This part does not relate to petitions on claims for liquidated damages
or penalties which are guaranteed by the conditions of the International
Carrier Bond (see § 113.64 of this Chapter).

3\. Subparts A through E of Part 171 are revised to read as follows:

SUBPART A-APPLICATION FOR RELIEF

  ------------ ----------------------------------------------------------
  *Sec.*       

  171.1        Petition for relief.

  171.2        Filing a petition.

  171.3        Oral presentations seeking relief.
  ------------ ----------------------------------------------------------

SUBPART B-ACTION ON PETITIONS

  ------------ ----------------------------------------------------------
  *Sec.*       

  171.11       Petitions acted on by Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures
               Officer.

  171.12       Petitions acted on at Customs Headquarters.

  171.13       Limitations on consideration of petitions.

  171.14       Headquarters advice.
  ------------ ----------------------------------------------------------

SUBPART C-DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS

  ------------ ----------------------------------------------------------
  *Sec.*       

  171.21       Written decisions.

  171.22       Decisions effective for limited time.

  171.23       Decisions not protestable.
  ------------ ----------------------------------------------------------

SUBPART D-DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS

  ------------ ----------------------------------------------------------
  *Sec.*       

  171.31       Form of offers.

  171.32       Acceptance of offers in compromise.
  ------------ ----------------------------------------------------------

SUBPART E-DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS

  ------------ ----------------------------------------------------------
  *Sec.*       

  171.41       Application of provisions for petitions for relief.

  171.42       Time limit for filing petition for restoration.

  171.43       Evidence required.

  171.44       Forfeited property authorized for official use.
  ------------ ----------------------------------------------------------

SUBPART A-APPLICATION FOR RELIEF

**§ 171.1 Petition for relief.**

\(a\) To whom addressed. Petitions for the remission or mitigation of a
fine, penalty, or forfeiture incurred under any law administered by
Customs must be addressed to the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures
Officer designated in the notice of claim.

\(b\) Signature. For commercial violations, the petition for remission
or mitigation must be signed by the petitioner, his attorney-at-law or a
Customs broker. If the petitioner is a corporation, the petition may be
signed by an officer or responsible supervisory official of the
corporation, or a responsible employee representative of the
corporation. Electronic signatures are acceptable. In non-commercial
violations, a non-English speaking petitioner or petitioner who has a
disability which may impede his ability to file a petition may enlist a
family member or other representative to file a petition on his behalf.
The deciding Customs officer may, in his or her discretion, require
proof of representation before consideration of any petition.

\(c\) Form. The petition for remission or mitigation need not be in any
particular form. Customs can require that the petition and any documents
submitted in support of the petition be in English or be accompanied by
an English translation. The petition must set forth the following:\
(1) A description of the property involved (if a seizure);\
(2) The date and place of the violation or seizure;\
(3) The facts and circumstances relied upon by the petitioner to justify
remission or mitigation; and\
(4) If a seizure case, proof of a petitionable interest in the seized
property.

\(d\) False statement in petition. A false statement contained in a
petition may subject the petitioner to prosecution under the provisions
of 18 U.S.C. 1001.

**§ 171.2 Filing a petition.**

\(a\) Where filed. A petition for relief must be filed with the Fines,
Penalties, and Forfeitures office whose address is given in the notice.\
\
(b) When filed.\
(1) Seizures. Petitions for relief from seizures must be filed within30
days from the date of mailing of the notice of seizure.\
(2) Penalties. Petitions for relief from penalties must be filed within
60 days of the mailing of the notice of penalty incurred.\
\
(c) Extensions. The Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer is
empowered to grant extensions of time to file petitions when the
circumstances so warrant.\
\
(d) Number of copies. The petition must be filed in duplicate unless
filed electronically.\
\
(e) Exception for certain cases. If a penalty is assessed or a seizure
is made and less than 180 days remain before the statute of limitations
may be asserted as a defense, the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures
Officer may specify in the seizure or penalty notice a reasonable period
of time, but not less than 7 working days, for the filing of a petition
for relief. If a petition is not filed within the time specified, the
matter will be transmitted promptly to the appropriate Office of the
Chief Counsel for referral to the Department of Justice.

**§ 171.3 Oral presentations seeking relief.**

\(a\) For violation of section 592 or section 593A. If the penalty
incurred is for a violation of section 592, Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 1592), or section 593A, Tariff Act of 1930, as added
(19 U.S.C. 1593a), the person named in the notice, in addition to filing
a petition, may make an oral presentation seeking relief in accordance
with this paragraph.\
\
(b) Other oral presentations.. Oral presentations other than those
provided in paragraph (a) of this section may be allowed in the
discretion of any official of the Customs Service or Department of the
Treasury authorized to act on a petition or supplemental petition.

SUBPART B-ACTION ON PETITIONS

**§ 171.11 Petitions acted on by Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures
Officer.**

\(a\) Remission or mitigation authority. Upon receipt of a petition for
relief submitted pursuant to the provisions of section 618 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1618), or section 5321(c) of title
31, United States Code (31 U.S.C. 5321(c)), or section 320 of title 46,
United States Code App. (46 U.S.C. App. 320), the Fines, Penalties, and
Forfeitures Officer is empowered to remit or mitigate on such terms and
conditions as, under law and in view of the circumstances, he or she
deems appropriate in accordance with appropriate delegations of
authority.\
\
(b) When violation did not occur. Notwithstanding any other delegation
of authority, the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer is always
empowered to cancel any claim when he or she definitely determines that
the act or omission forming the basis of any claim of penalty or
forfeiture did not occur.\
\
(c) When violation is result of vessel in distress. The Fines,
Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer may remit without payment any penalty
which arises for violation of the coastwise laws if he or she is
satisfied that the violation occurred as a direct result of an arrival
of the transporting vessel in distress.

**§ 171.11 Petitions acted on by Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures
Officer.**

Upon receipt of a petition for relief filed pursuant to the provisions
of section 618 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1618),
section 5321(c) of title 31, United States Code (31 U.S.C. 5321(c)), or
section 320 of title 46, United States Code App. (46 U.S.C. App. 320),
involving fines, penalties, and forfeitures which are outside of his or
her delegated authority, the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer
will refer that petition to the Chief, Penalties Branch, Office of
Regulations and Rulings, Customs Headquarters, who is empowered to remit
or mitigate on such terms and conditions as, under law and in view of
the circumstances, he or she deems appropriate, unless there has been no
delegation to act by the Secretary of the Treasury or his designee. In
those cases where there has been no delegation to act by the Secretary,
the Chief, Penalties Branch, will forward the matter to the Department
with a recommendation.

**§ 171.13 Limitations on consideration of petitions.**

\(a\) Cases referred for institution of legal proceedings. No action
will be taken on any petition after the case has been referred to the
Department of Justice for institution of legal proceedings. The petition
will be forwarded to the Department of Justice.\
\
(b) Conveyance awarded for official use. No petition for remission of
forfeiture of a seized conveyance which has been forfeited and retained
for official use will be considered unless it is filed before final
disposition of the property is made. This does not affect petitions for
restoration of proceeds of sale filed pursuant to the provisions of
section 613 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1613).

**§ 171.14 Headquarters advice.**

The advice of the Director, International Trade Compliance Division,
Office of Regulations and Rulings, Customs Headquarters, may be sought
in any case (except as provided in this section), without regard to
delegated authority to act on a petition or offer, when a novel or
complex issue concerning a ruling, policy, or procedure is presented
concerning a Customs action(s) or potential Customs action(s) relating
to seizures and forfeitures, penalties, or mitigating or remitting any
claim. This section does not apply to actual duty loss tenders
determined by Customs pursuant to § 162.74(c) of this Chapter relating
to prior disclosure and to actual duty loss demands made under § 162.79b
of this Chapter. The request for advice may be initiated by the alleged
violator or any Customs officer, but must be submitted to the Fines,
Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer. The Fines, Penalties, and
Forfeitures Officer retains the authority to refuse to forward any
request that fails to raise a qualifying issue and to seek legal advice
from the appropriate Associate or Assistant Chief Counsel in any case.

SUBPART C-DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS

**§ 171.21 Written decisions.**

If a petition for relief relates to a violation of sections 592, 593A or
641, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1592, 19 U.S.C. 1593a, or
19 U.S.C. 1641), the petitioner will be provided with a written
statement setting forth the decision on the matter and the findings of
fact and conclusions of law upon which the decision is based.

**§ 171.22 Decisions effective for limited time.**

A decision to mitigate a penalty or to remit a forfeiture upon condition
that a stated amount is paid will be effective for not more than60 days
from the date of notice to the petitioner of such decision unless the
decision itself prescribes a different effective period. If payment of
the stated amount or arrangements for such payment are not made, or a
supplemental petition is not filed in accordance with regulation, the
full penalty or claim for forfeiture will be deemed applicable and will
be enforced by promptly referring the matter, after required collection
action, if appropriate, to the appropriate Office of the Chief Counsel
for preparation for referral to the Department of Justice unless other
action has been directed by the Commissioner of Customs.

**§ 171.23 Decisions not protestable.**

\(a\) Mitigation decision not subject to protest. Any decision to remit
a forfeiture or mitigate a penalty is not a protestable decision as
defined under the provisions of 19 U.S.C. 1514. Any payment made in
compliance with any decision to remit a forfeiture or mitigate a penalty
is not a charge or exaction and therefore is not a protestable action as
defined under the provisions of 19 U.S.C. 1514.\
\
(b) Payment of mitigated amount as accord and satisfaction. Payment of a
mitigated amount in compliance with an administrative decision on a
petition or supplemental petition for relief will be considered an
election of administrative proceedings and full disposition of the case.
Payment of a mitigated amount will act as an accord and satisfaction of
the Government claim. Payment of a mitigated amount will never serve as
a bar to filing a supplemental petition for relief.

SUBPART D-OFFERS IN COMPROMISE

**§ 171.31 Form of offers.**

Offers in compromise submitted pursuant to the provisions of section 617
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1617) must expressly
state that they are being submitted in accordance with the provisions of
that section. The amount of the offer must be deposited with Customs in
accordance with the provisions of § 161.5 of this Chapter.

**§ 171.32 Acceptance of offers in compromise.**

An offer in compromise will be considered accepted only when the offeror
is so notified in writing. As a condition to accepting an offer in
compromise, the offeror may be required to enter into any collateral
agreement or to post any security which is deemed necessary for the
protection of the interest of the United States.

SUBPART E-RESTORATION OF PROCEEDS OF SALE

**§ 171.41 Application of provisions for petitions for relief.**

The general provisions of subpart A of this part on filing and content
of petitions for relief apply to petitions for restoration of proceeds
of sale except insofar as modified by this subpart.

**§ 171.42 Time limit for filing petition for restoration.**

A petition for the restoration of proceeds of sale under section 613,
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1613) must be filed within3
months after the date of the sale.

**§ 171.43 Evidence required.**

In addition to such other evidence as may be required under the
provisions of subpart A of this part, the petition for restoration of
proceeds of sale under section 613, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19
U.S.C. 1613), must show the interest of the petitioner in the property.
The petition must be supported by satisfactory proof that the petitioner
did not know of the seizure prior to the declaration or decree of
forfeiture and was in such circumstances as prevented him from knowing
of it.

**§ 171.44 Forfeited property authorized for official use.**

If forfeited property which is the subject of a claim under section 613,
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1613) has been authorized for
official use, retention or delivery will be regarded as the sale thereof
for the purposes of section 613. The appropriation available to the
receiving agency for the purchase, hire, operation, maintenance and
repair of property of the kind so received is available for the granting
of relief to the claimant and for the satisfaction of liens for freight,
charges and contributions in general average that may have been filed.\
4. Subpart G is added to Part 171 to read as follows:

SUBPART G-SUPPLEMENTAL PETITIONS FOR RELIEF

  ------------ ----------------------------------------------------------
  *Sec.*       

  171.61       Time and place of filing.

  171.62       Supplemental petition decision authority.

  171.63       Appeals to the Secretary of the Treasury in certain 1592
               cases.

  171.64       Waiver of statute of limitations.
  ------------ ----------------------------------------------------------

SUBPART G-SUPPLEMENTAL PETITIONS FOR RELIEF

**§ 171.61 Time and place of filing.**

If the petitioner is not satisfied with a decision of the deciding
official on an original petition for relief, a supplemental petition may
be filed with the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer having
jurisdiction in the port where the violation occurred. Such supplemental
petition must be filed within 60 days from the date of notice to the
petitioner of the decision from which further relief is requested or
within 60 days following an administrative or judicial decision with
respect to the entries involved in a penalty case which reduces the loss
of duties upon which the mitigated penalty amount was based (whichever
is later) unless another time to file such a supplemental petition is
prescribed in the decision. The filing of a supplemental petition may be
subject to the conditions prescribed in § 171.64 of this part. A
supplemental petition may be filed whether or not the mitigated penalty
or forfeiture remission amount designated in the decision on the
original petition is paid.

**§ 171.62 Supplemental petition decision authority.**

a)  Decisions of Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officers.
    Supplemental petitions filed on cases where the original decision
    was made by the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer, will be
    initially reviewed by that official. The Fines, Penalties, and
    Forfeitures Officer may choose to grant more relief and issue a
    decision indicating that additional relief to the petitioner. If the
    petitioner is dissatisfied with the further relief granted or if the
    Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer decides to grant no
    further relief, the supplemental petition will be forwarded to a
    designated Headquarters official assigned to a field location for
    review and decision, except that supplemental petitions filed in
    cases involving violations of 19 U.S.C. 1641 where the amount of the
    penalty assessed exceeds \$10,000 will be forwarded to the Chief,
    Penalties Branch, Office of Regulations and Rulings.

\(b\) Decisions of Customs Headquarters.. Supplemental petitions filed
on cases where the original decision was made by the Chief, Penalties
Branch, Office of Regulations and Rulings, Customs Headquarters, will be
forwarded to the Director, International Trade Compliance Division,
Customs Headquarters, for review and decision.

c\) Decisions of Treasury Department. Supplemental petitions filed on
cases where the original decision was made in the Treasury Department,
will be referred to the Chief, Penalties Branch, Office of Regulations
and Rulings, Customs Headquarters, who will forward the supplemental
petitions to the Department with a recommendation.

\(d\) Authority of Assistant Commissioner. Any authority given to any
Headquarters official by this part may also be exercised by the
Assistant Commissioner, Office of Regulations and Rulings, or his
designee.

**§ 171.63 Appeals to the Secretary of the Treasury in certain 1592
cases.**

A petitioner filing a supplemental petition pursuant to this subpart
from a decision of the Chief, Penalties Branch, Office of Regulations
and Rulings, with respect to any liability assessed under 19 U.S.C. 1592
may request that the petition be accepted as an appeal to the Secretary
of the Treasury. The Secretary will accept for decision any such
supplemental petition when in his discretion he determines that such
petition raises a question of fact, law or policy of such importance as
to require a decision by the Secretary. If the Secretary declines to
accept an appeal for decision, the petitioner will be so informed. In
such a case, a decision will be issued thereon by the Director,
International Trade Compliance Division.

**§ 171.64 Waiver of statute of limitations.**

The deciding Customs official always reserves the right to require a
waiver of the statute of limitations executed by the claimants to the
property or charged party or parties as a condition precedent before
accepting a supplemental petition in any case in which less than one
year remains before the statute will be available as a defense to all or
part of that case.

5\. Appendix C to Part 171 is amended by removing the NOTE following
section I.D., removing section I.E., redesignating section I.F.. as
section I.E., removing section I.G. and redesignating section I.H. as
section I.F.

1\. Part 172 is revised to read as follows:

PART 172-CLAIMS FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES;\
PENALTIES SECURED BY BONDS

  ------------ ----------------------------------------------------------
  *Sec.*       

  172.0        Scope.
  ------------ ----------------------------------------------------------

SUBPART A-NOTICE OF CLAIM AND APPLICATION FOR RELIEF

  ------------ ----------------------------------------------------------
  *Sec.*       

  172.1        Notice of liquidated damages or penalty incurred and right
               to petition for relief.

  172.2        Petition for relief.

  172.3        Filing a petition.

  172.4        Demand on surety.
  ------------ ----------------------------------------------------------

SUBPART B-ACTION ON PETITIONS

  ------------ ----------------------------------------------------------
  *Sec.*       

  172.11       Petitions acted on by Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures
               Officer.

  172.12       Petitions acted at Customs Headquarters.

  172.13       Limitations on consideration of petitions.

  172.14       Headquarters advice.
  ------------ ----------------------------------------------------------

SUBPART C-DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS

  ------------ ----------------------------------------------------------
  *Sec.*       

  172.21       Decisions effective for limited time.

  172.22       Decisions not protestable.
  ------------ ----------------------------------------------------------

SUBPART D-OFFERS IN COMPROMISE

  ------------ ----------------------------------------------------------
  *Sec.*       

  172.31       Form of offers.

  172.32       Authority to accept offers.

  172.33       Acceptance of offers in compromise.
  ------------ ----------------------------------------------------------

SUBPART E-SUPPLEMENTAL PETITIONS FOR RELIEF

  ------------ ----------------------------------------------------------
  *Sec.*       

  172.41       Time and place of filing.

  172.42       Supplemental petition decision authority.

  172.43       Waiver of statute of limitations..
  ------------ ----------------------------------------------------------

**Authority:** 19 U.S.C. 66, 1618, 1623, 1624; 46 U.S.C. App. 320.

**§ 172.0 Scope.**

This part contains provisions relating to petitions for relief from
claims for liquidated damages arising under any Customs bond and
penalties incurred which are secured by the conditions of the
International Carrier Bond (see § 113.64 of this Chapter). This part
does not relate to petitions on unsecured fines or penalties or seizures
and forfeitures, nor does it relate to petitions for the restoration of
proceeds of sale pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1613.

SUBPART A-NOTICE OF CLAIM AND APPLICATION FOR RELIEF

**§ 172.1 Notice of liquidated damages or penalty incurred and right to
petition for relief.**

\(a\) Notice of liquidated damages or penalty incurred. When there is a
failure to meet the conditions of any bond posted with Customs or when a
violation occurs which results in assessment of a penalty which is
secured by a Customs bond, the principal will be notified in writing of
any liability for liquidated damages or penalty incurred and a demand
will be made for payment. The sureties on such bond will also be
notified in writing of any such liability at the same time.

\(b\) Notice of right to petition for relief. The notice will inform the
principal that application may be made for relief from payment of
liquidated damages or penalty.

**§ 172.2 Petition for relief.**

\(a\) To whom addressed. Petitions for the cancellation of any claim for
liquidated damages or remission or mitigation of a fine or penalty
secured by a Customs bond incurred under any law or regulation
administered by Customs must be addressed to the Fines, Penalties, and
Forfeitures Officer designated in the notice of claim.

\(b\) Signature. The petition for remission or mitigation must be signed
by the petitioner, his attorney-at-law or a Customs broker. If the
petitioner is a corporation, the petition may be signed by an officer or
responsible supervisory official of the corporation, or responsible
employee representative of the corporation. Electronic signatures are
acceptable. The deciding Customs officer may, in his or her discretion
and with articulable cause, require proof of representation before
consideration of any petition.

c\) Form. The petition for cancellation, remission or mitigation need
not be in any particular form. Customs can require that the petition and
any documents submitted in support of the petition be in English or be
accompanied by an English translation. The petition must set forth the
following:\
(1) The date and place of the violation; and\
(2) The facts and circumstances relied upon by the petitioner to justify
cancellation, remission or mitigation.

\(d\) False statement in petition. A false statement contained in a
petition may subject the petitioner to prosecution under the provisions
of 18 U.S.C.. 1001.

**§ 172.3 Filing a petition.**

\(a\) Where filed. A petition for relief must be filed by the bond
principal with the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures office whose
address is given in the notice.

\(b\) When filed. Petitions for relief must be filed within 60 days from
the date of mailing to the bond principal the notice of claim for
liquidated damages or penalty secured by a bond.

\(c\) Extensions. The Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer is
empowered to grant extensions of time to file petitions when the
circumstances so warrant.

\(d\) Number of copies. The petition must be filed in duplicate unless
filed electronically.

\(e\) Exception for certain cases. If a penalty or claim for liquidated
damages is assessed and fewer than 180 days remain from the date of
penalty or liquidated damages notice before the statute of limitations
may be asserted as a defense, the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures
Officer may specify in the notice a reasonable period of time, but not
less than 7 working days, for the filing of a petition for relief. If a
petition is not filed within the time specified, the matter will be
transmitted promptly to the appropriate Office of the Chief Counsel for
referral to the Department of Justice.

**§ 172.4 Demand on surety.**

If the principal fails to file a petition for relief or fails to comply
in the prescribed time with a decision to mitigate a penalty or cancel a
claim for liquidated damages issued with regard to a petition for
relief, Customs will make a demand for payment on surety. The surety
will then have 60 days from the date of the demand to file a petition
for relief.

SUBPART B-ACTION ON PETITIONS

**§ 172.11 Petitions acted on by Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures
Officer.**

\(a\) Mitigation or cancellation authority. Upon receipt of a petition
for relief submitted pursuant to the provisions of section 618 or 623 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1618 or 19 U.S.C. 1623),
or section 320 of title 46, United States Code App. (46 U.S.C. App.
320), the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer, notwithstanding any
other law or regulation, is empowered to mitigate any penalty or cancel
any claim for liquidated damages on such terms and conditions as, under
law and in view of the circumstances, he or she shall deem appropriate
in accordance with appropriate delegations of authority.

\(b\) When violation did not occur.. Notwithstanding any other
delegation of authority, the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer
is always empowered to cancel any case without payment of a mitigated or
cancellation amount when he or she definitely determines that the act or
omission forming the basis of any claim of penalty or claim for
liquidated damages did not occur.

**§ 172.12 Petitions acted on at Customs Headquarters.**

Upon receipt of a petition for relief filed pursuant to the provisions
of section 618 or 623 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C.
1618 or 19 U.S.C. 1623), or section 320 of title 46, United States Code
App.(46 U.S.C. App. 320), involving fines, penalties, and claims for
liquidated damages which are outside of his or her delegated authority
the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer will refer that petition
to the Chief, Penalties Branch, Office of Regulations and Rulings,
Customs Headquarters, who is empowered, notwithstanding any other law or
regulation, to mitigate penalties or cancel bond claims on such terms
and conditions as, under law and in view of the circumstances, he or she
deems appropriate.

**§ 172.13 Limitations on consideration of petitions.**

\(a\) Cases referred for institution of legal proceedings. No action
will be taken on any petition if the civil liability has been referred
to the Department of Justice for institution of legal proceedings. The
petition will be forwarded to the Department of Justice.

\(b\) Delinquent sureties. No action will be taken on any petition from
a principal or surety if received after the issuance to surety of a
notice to show cause pursuant to the provisions of § 113.38(c)(3) of
this Chapter.

**§ 172.14 Headquarters advice.**

The advice of the Director, International Trade Compliance Division,
Office of Regulations and Rulings, Customs Headquarters, may be sought
in any case (except as provided in this section), without regard to
delegated authority to act on a petition or offer, when a novel or
complex issue concerning a ruling, policy, or procedure is presented
concerning a Customs action(s) or potential Customs action(s) relating
to penalties secured by bonds (including penalty-based determinations of
duty except as provided in this section), claims for liquidated damages
or mitigating any claim. This section does not apply to actual duty loss
tenders determined by Customs pursuant to § 162.74(c) of this chapter
relating to prior disclosure. The request for advice may be initiated by
the bond principal, surety or any Customs officer, but must be submitted
to the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer. The Fines, Penalties,
and Forfeitures Officer retains the authority to refuse to forward any
request that fails to raise a qualifying issue and to seek legal advice
from the appropriate Associate or Assistant Chief Counsel in any case.

SUBPART C-DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS

**§ 172.21 Decisions effective for limited time.**

A decision to mitigate a penalty or to cancel a claim for liquidated
damages upon condition that a stated amount is paid will be effective
for not more than 60 days from the date of notice to the petitioner of
such decision unless the decision itself prescribes a different
effective period. If payment of the stated amount is not made or a
petition or a supplemental petition is not filed in accordance with
regulation, the full penalty or claim for liquidated damages will be
deemed applicable and will be enforced by promptly transmitting the
matter, after required collection action, if appropriate, to the
appropriate office of the Chief Counsel for preparation for referral to
the Department of Justice unless other action has been directed by the
Commissioner of Customs. Any such case may also be the basis for a
sanction action commenced in accordance with regulations in this
Chapter.

**§ 172.22 Decisions not protestable.**

\(a\) Mitigation decision not subject to protest. Any decision to remit
or mitigate a penalty or cancel a claim for liquidated damages upon
payment of a lesser amount is not a protestable decision as defined
under the provisions of 19 U.S.C. 1514. Any payment made in compliance
with any decision to remit or mitigate a penalty or cancel a claim for
liquidated damages upon payment of a lesser amount is not a charge or
exaction and therefore is not a protestable action as defined under the
provisions of 19 U.S.C. 1514.

\(b\) Payment of mitigated or cancellation amount as accord and
satisfaction. Payment of a mitigated or cancellation amount in
compliance with an administrative decision on a petition or supplemental
petition for relief will be considered an election of administrative
proceedings and full disposition of the case. Payment of a mitigated or
cancellation amount will act as an accord and satisfaction of the
Government claim. Payment of a mitigated or cancellation amount will
never serve as a bar to filing a supplemental petition for relief.

SUBPART D-OFFERS IN COMPROMISE

**§ 172.31 Form of offers.**

Offers in compromise submitted pursuant to the provisions of section 617
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1617), must expressly
state that they are being submitted in accordance with the provisions of
that section. The amount of the offer must be deposited with Customs in
accordance with the provisions of § 161.5 of this Chapter.

**§ 172.32 Authority to accept offers.**

The authority to accept offers in compromise, subject to the
recommendation of the General Counsel of the Treasury or his delegee,
resides with the official having authority to decide a petition for
relief, except that authority to accept offers in compromise submitted
with regard to penalties secured by a bond or claims for liquidated
damages which are the subject of a letter to show cause issued to a
surety in anticipation of possible action involving nonacceptance of
bonds authorized under the provisions of Part 113 of this chapter will
reside with the designated Headquarters official who issued the show
cause letter.

**§ 172.33 Acceptance of offers in compromise.**

An offer in compromise will be considered accepted only when the offeror
is so notified in writing. As a condition to accepting an offer in
compromise, the offeror may be required to enter into any collateral
agreement or to post any security which is deemed necessary for the
protection of the interest of the United States.

SUBPART E-SUPPLEMENTAL PETITIONS FOR RELIEF

**§ 172.41 Time and place of filing.**

If the petitioner is not satisfied with a decision of the deciding
official on an original petition for relief, a supplemental petition may
be filed with the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer having
jurisdiction in the port where the violation occurred. The petitioner
must file such a supplemental petition within 60 days from the date of
notice to the petitioner of the decision from which further relief is
requested or within 60 days following an administrative or judicial
decision with respect to issues serving as the basis for the claim for
liquidated damages (whichever is later) unless another time to file such
a supplemental petition is prescribed in the decision. A supplemental
petition may be filed whether or not the mitigated amount designated in
the decision on the original petition is paid.

**§ 172.42 Supplemental petition decision authority.**

\(a\) Decisions of Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officers.
Supplemental petitions filed on cases where the original decision was
made by the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer, will be initially
reviewed by that official. The Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer
may choose to grant more relief and issue a decision indicating
additional relief to the petitioner. If the petitioner is dissatisfied
with the further relief granted or if the Fines, Penalties, and
Forfeitures Officer decides to grant no further relief, the supplemental
petition will be forwarded to a designated Headquarters official
assigned to a field location for review and decision.

\(b\) Decisions of Customs Headquarters. Supplemental petitions filed on
cases where the original decision was made by the Chief, Penalties
Branch, Office of Regulations and Rulings, Customs Headquarters, will be
forwarded to the Director, International Trade Compliance Division, for
review and decision.

\(c\) Authority of Assistant Commissioner. Any authority given to any
Headquarters official by this part may also be exercised by the
Assistant Commissioner, Office of Regulations and Rulings, or his
designee.

**§ 172.43 Waiver of statute of limitations.**

The deciding Customs official always reserves the right to require a
waiver of the statute of limitations executed by the charged party or
parties as a condition precedent before accepting a supplemental
petition in any case in which less than one year remains before the
statute will be available as a defense to all or part of that case.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| RAYMOND W. KELLY,\                                                    |
| *Commissioner of Customs.*                                            |
|                                                                       |
| Approved: July 25, 2000.\                                             |
| JOHN P. SIMPSON\                                                      |
| *Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury\                          |
| *\[Published in the Federal Register, September 5, 2000 (65 FR        |
| 53565)\]                                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| T.D. 00-58)                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY TO DECIDE\                                   |
| PETITIONS FOR RELIEF                                                  |
|                                                                       |
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**AGENCY:** U.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.

**ACTION:** General notice.

**SUMMARY:** This notice advises the public of the delegations of
authority to decide petitions and supplemental petitions submitted
pursuant to Parts 171 or 172 of the Customs Regulations granted to
Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officers; Headquarters officials in
field locations; the Chief, Penalties Branch, Office of Regulations and
Rulings, Customs Headquarters; the Director, International Trade
Compliance Division, Customs Headquarters; and the Assistant
Commissioner, Office of Regulations and Rulings, Customs Headquarters,
with regard to petitions and supplemental petitions for relief submitted
concerning claims for liquidated damages, seizures and penalties
incurred under laws administered by Customs. The document also
identifies those cases where the Secretary of the Treasury has retained
all administrative authority to decide petitions and supplemental
petitions for relief.

**EFFECTIVE DATE:** October 5, 2000.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:**Jeremy Baskin, Penalties Branch,
Office of Regulations and Rulings, 202-927-2344.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notwithstanding any other delegations of authority that have been
previously published, the following are delegations of authority granted
to the enumerated Customs officers to decide petitions and supplemental
petitions for relief under authority granted to the Secretary of the
Treasury by sections 618 and 623 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(19 U.S.C. 1618 and 1623), and section 320 of title 46, United States
Code App. (46 U.S.C. App. 320), and section 5321 of title 31, United
States Code (31 U..S.C. 5321).

I. Original Petitions for Relief

A. Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officers. Fines, Penalties, and
Forfeitures Officers are hereby delegated authority to decide original
petitions as follows:

\(1\) Liquidated damages. All claims for liquidated damages arising from
breach of the basic importation bond for failing to file or late filing
of entry summaries or failing to pay or late payment of estimated
duties. Any other claim for liquidated damages for breach of any Customs
bond when the amount of the claim does not exceed \$200,000.

\(2\) 19 U.S.C. 1592, 19 U.S.C. 1593a. Any fines, penalties, or
forfeitures incurred under the provisions of section 592 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1592), or section 593A of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1593a), when the total amount of
those fines, penalties, or forfeitures does not exceed \$50,000.

\(3\) 19 U.S.C. 1436, 1453, 1595a(b) and 1641. All fines, penalties, or
forfeitures incurred under the provisions of sections 436, 453 or 641 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1436, 19 U.S.C. 1453 and19
U.S.C. 1641, respectively) and any penalties incurred under the
provisions of section 596 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19
U.S.C. 1595a(b)) for delivering merchandise from the place of unlading
without Customs authorization or without appropriate examination in
violation of the provisions of section 448 or 499 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1448 or 19 U.S.C. 1499, respectively) when
the amount of the claim does not exceed \$200,000.

\(4\) Other laws administered by Customs. Except as noted in
subparagraphs (A)(1), (A)(2) or (A)(3), and except where the Secretary
of the Treasury retains jurisdiction: any fines, penalties, or
forfeitures or claims for liquidated damages incurred under any other
law administered by Customs when the total amount of the fines,
penalties, and forfeitures incurred with respect to any one offense does
not exceed \$100,000.

B. Chief, Penalties Branch, Office of Regulations and Rulings. The
Chief, Penalties Branch, Office of Regulations and Rulings, Customs
Headquarters, is delegated authority to decide all petitions for relief
submitted with regard to cases which are neither enumerated as remaining
under the original jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Treasury nor
have been delegated to the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officers.

C. Assistant Commissioner, Office of Regulations and Rulings.
Notwithstanding any other delegation of authority, the Assistant
Commissioner, Office of Regulations and Rulings, Customs Headquarters,
or his delegate, has authority to remit or mitigate any penalties
assessed against super carriers for failure to manifest narcotic drugs
pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1584(a)(2).

D. Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary of the Treasury, or his
delegate retains jurisdiction over original petitions for relief filed
with regard to the following cases:

\(1\) Certain civil monetary penalties. All jurisdiction over the
remission or mitigation of monetary penalties imposed for violation of
the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 5321.

\(2\) Certain monetary instrument seizures. Seizures, subject to
forfeiture under the provisions of title 31, United States Code, section
5317, of monetary instruments for violation of the provisions of title
31, United States Code, section 5316, when the value of the monetary
instruments exceeds \$500,000.

\(3\) Export control. Seizures of merchandise subject to forfeiture
under the provisions of title 22, United States Code, section 401, when
the value of the merchandise exceeds \$500,000.

\(4\) Failure to declare merchandise. All fines, penalties, and
forfeitures arising from failure to declare merchandise in violation of
the provisions of title 19, United States Code, section 1497, when total
liability exceeds \$250,000.

\(5\) Conveyance seizures. Seizures of conveyances for violations other
than those involving importation or transportation of controlled
substances when the value of the conveyance exceeds \$500,000.

\(6\) Property seized under 18 U.S.C. 981 relating to violations of18
U.S.C. 1956 or 1957. Seizures of property under 18 U.S.C. 981 relating
to violations of 18 U.S.C. 1956 or 1957 when the value of that property
exceeds \$500,000.

II\. Supplemental petitions for relief.

A. Decisions of Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officers. Supplemental
petitions filed on cases where the original decision was made by the
Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer will be initially reviewed by
that official. The Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer may choose
to grant more relief and issue a decision indicating additional relief
to the petitioner. If the petitioner is dissatisfied with the further
relief granted or if the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer
decides to grant no further relief, the supplemental petition will be
forwarded to a designated Headquarters official assigned to a field
location for review and decision, except that supplemental petitions
filed in cases involving violations of 19 U.S.C. 1641 where the amount
of the penalty assessed exceeds \$10,000 will be forwarded to the Chief,
Penalties Branch, Office of Regulations and Rulings, Customs
Headquarters.

B. Decisions of the Chief, Penalties Branch, Office of Regulations and
Rulings.. Supplemental petitions filed on cases where the original
decision was made by the Chief, Penalties Branch, Office of Regulations
and Rulings, Customs Headquarters, and the Chief, Penalties Branch,
believes that no further relief is warranted will be forwarded to the
Director, International Trade Compliance Division, Customs Headquarters,
for review and decision.

C. Decisions of the Assistant Commissioner, Office of Regulations and
Rulings. Supplemental petitions filed on cases where the original
decision was made by the Assistant Commissioner, Office of Regulations
and Rulings, Customs Headquarters, or his delegate, will be retained by
the Assistant Commissioner, Office of Regulations and Rulings, for
review and decision, and will not be delegated.

D. Decisions of Treasury Department. Supplemental petitions filed on
cases where the original decision was made in the Treasury Department
will be forwarded to the Chief, Penalties Branch, Office of Regulations
and Rulings, Customs Headquarters, where decisions on the supplemental
petitions will be prepared for the Treasury Department for review and
approval.

III\. Authority of the Assistant Commissioner, Office of Regulations and
Rulings.

All authority delegated to Headquarters personnel set forth in this
document is also vested in the Assistant Commissioner, Office of
Regulations and Rulings, Customs Headquarters.

  ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
  RAYMOND W. KELLY,\                                                  
  *Commissioner of Customs.*                                          

  Approved: July 25, 2000.\                                           
  JOHN P. SIMPSON\                                                    
  *Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury\                        
  *\[Published in the Federal Register, September 5, 2000 (65 FR      
  53804)\]                                                            
  ------------------------------------------------------------------- ---