MATTER OF PAWA. PLANE No. 715 

In FINE Proceedings 

HMV-10/21.1 & 10/24.3 

Decided by Board June 22, 1960 

Piz --Section 231 of 1952 act—Opportunity for correction not required where 

history of errors and warnings exists. 

Carrier which has repeatedly submitted incorrect Forms 1-94 and has been 

warned about further errors incurs liability for fine under section 231 of 

1952 act because of clerical errors in its manifests even without an opportunity for correction, withheld because of resultant delay in inspection. 

(Cf. Matter of PAWA Plane No. 774, 7 I. & N. Dec. 403.) 

IN an: PAWA Plane No. 715, "Flight 852/19," which arrived at Honolulu 

from foreign on October 19, 1959-12 passengers involved; PAWA 

Plane "Flight 852/26," which arrived at Honolulu from foreign on 

October 25, 1959-15 alien passengers involved. 

BASIS FOE FIINE : Act of 1952—Section 231 [8 U.S.C. 1221] and 8 CFR 231.1. 

BEFORE THE BOARD 

Discussion: These appeals are directed to administrative penalties totaling $270 ($10 as to each passenger involved), which the 

District Director at Honolulu has ordered imposed on this carrier 

for failure to present properly executed Forms 1-94 as a part of the 

arrival manifests submitted as to them. Specifically, it is charged 

that the Forms 1-94 were deficient in that the passengers' names 

were incompletely or incorrectly reported; their addresses in the 

United States were not shown; information as to the issuance of 

their visas was omitted; or the forms were not legible. 

The carrier does not dispute the fact that the Forms 1-94 presented were not properly executed. It states that one of its employees was assigned in the immigration clearance area to screen 

these forms for each of these flights. It contends that in connection with the arrival of each of these aircraft said employees aver 

that they were not notified of deficiencies during the examination 

of the passengers. Tinder such circumstances, it claims that no fines 

lie on the authority of an unreported decision of this Board (F-0300/ 

7725, August 14. 1956) wherein we held that where the errors involved in the Forms 1-94 were minor, of a clerical nature, inadver- 

,694 
tent, and not made with the intent to violate the immigration laws 

of the United States, the provisions of paragraphs 11.3 and 11.4 of 

Annex 9, International Civil Aviation Convention, governed and 

that a fine could not be imposed unless the carrier had first been 

given an opportunity to correct the errors. 

The district director states that Service officers, as a matter of 

practice, have been instructed to call such deficiencies as existed here 

to the attention of the carrier's representatives and to give them an 

opportunity to correct the errors, and that this practice was followed 

in this instance. He asserts that the carrier's available representatives were unable to make the corrections without abnormal and 

undue delay of immigration inspection. He sets forth that as recently as August 11, 1959, he formally notified this carrier in writing of numerous deficiencies and mistakes in the presentation of 

the Forms 1-94 the carrier was presenting for its passengers and 

advised the carrier that repeated errors of this nature would result 

in the imposition of penalties. Under such circumstances, he held 

that liability to fine had been incurred on the authority of a prior 

precedent decision of this Board involving the same carrier (Matter 

of PAW A Plane No. 774, 7 I. & N. Dec. 403). In doing so, he 

properly distinguished this case from the one relied on by the carrier wherein (1) no opportunity was given for the correction of 

minor clerical and inadvertent errors; (2) there was no history of 

such errors; and (3) delay of inspection would not have resulted 

had the carrier been given an opportunity to correct the errors. 

Upon careful consideration of the entire evidence, together with 

the representations throughout, we are of the opinion that the district director has properly ordered the penalties imposed in these 

cases for the reasons and on the authority stated in his opinion. 

Briefly, a carrier which has repeatedly submitted incorrect manifests and has been warned about further errors is subject to a fine 

for clerical errors in its manifests, even without the opportunity for 

correction. In such a situation the United States implementation to 

paragraphs 11.3 and 11.4 of Annex 9 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, is controlling on the question of liability 

(7 I. & N. Dec. 403, .supra). While that decision involves a different section of the law (section 251 of the Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.S.C. 1281), the reasoning thereof is equally applicable here. 

Order: It is ordered that the appeals be and the same are hereby 

dismissed. 

6a5