TITLE 19 CHAPTER 4 SUBTITLE III Part II § 1434Prev | Next


§ 1434. Entry; vessels

How Current is This?


(a) Formal entry
Within 24 hours (or such other period of time as may be provided under
subsection (c)(2) of this section) after the arrival at any port or place in
the United States of-
(1) any vessel from a foreign port or place;
(2) any foreign vessel from a domestic port;
(3) any vessel of the United States having on board foreign merchandise for
which entry has not been made; or
(4) any vessel which has visited a hovering vessel or has delivered or
received merchandise while outside the territorial sea;
the master of the vessel shall, unless otherwise provided by law, make
formal entry at the nearest customs facility or such other place as the
Secretary may prescribe by regulation.
(b) Preliminary entry
The Secretary may by regulation permit the master to make preliminary entry
of the vessel with the Customs Service in lieu of formal entry or before
formal entry is made. In permitting preliminary entry, the Customs Service
shall board a sufficient number of vessels to ensure compliance with the
laws it enforces.
(c) Regulations
The Secretary may by regulation-
(1) prescribe the manner and format in which entry under subsection (a) of
this section or subsection (b) of this section, or both, must be made, and
such regulations may provide that any such entry may be made electronically
pursuant to an electronic data interchange system;
(2) provide that-
(A) formal entry must be made within a greater or lesser time than 24 hours
after arrival, but in no case more than 48 hours after arrival, and
(B) formal entry may be made before arrival; and
(3) authorize the Customs Service to permit entry or preliminary entry of
any vessel to be made at a place other than a designated port of entry,
under such conditions as may be prescribed.
§ 1436. Penalties for violations of arrival, reporting, entry, and clearance
requirements


(a) Unlawful acts
It is unlawful-
(1) to fail to comply with section 1431, 1433, or 1434 of this title or
section 91 of title 46, Appendix;
(2) to present or transmit, electronically or otherwise, any forged,
altered, or false document, paper, information, data or manifest to the
Customs Service under section 1431, 1433 (d), or 1434 of this title or
section 91 of title 46, Appendix, without revealing the facts;
(3) to fail to make entry or to obtain clearance as required by section 1434
or 1644 of this title, section 91 of title 46, Appendix, or section 1644a
(b)(1) or (c)(1) of this title; or
(4) to fail to comply with, or violate, any regulation prescribed under any
section referred to in any of paragraphs (1) through (3).
(b) Civil penalty
Any master, person in charge of a vehicle, or aircraft pilot who commits any
violation listed in subsection (a) of this section is liable for a civil
penalty of $5,000 for the first violation, and $10,000 for each subsequent
violation, and any conveyance used in connection with any such violation is
subject to seizure and forfeiture.
(c) Criminal penalty
In addition to being liable for a civil penalty under subsection (b) of this
section, any master, person in charge of a vehicle, or aircraft pilot who
intentionally commits any violation listed in subsection (a) of this section
is, upon conviction, liable for a fine of not more than $2,000 or
imprisonment for 1 year, or both; except that if the conveyance has, or is
discovered to have had, on board any merchandise (other than sea stores or
the equivalent for conveyances other than vessels) the importation of which
into the United States is prohibited, such individual is liable for an
additional fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than 5
years, or both.
(d) Additional civil penalty
If any merchandise (other than sea stores or the equivalent for conveyances
other than a vessel) is imported or brought into the United States in or
aboard a conveyance which was not properly reported or entered, the master,
person in charge of a vehicle, or aircraft pilot shall be liable for a civil
penalty equal to the value of the merchandise and the merchandise may be
seized and forfeited unless properly entered by the importer or consignee.
If the merchandise consists of any controlled substance listed in section
1584 of this title, the master, individual in charge of a vehicle, or pilot
shall be liable to the penalties prescribed in that section.

You are of course free to do whatever you wish to do - and in your case I
wonder what you would do in the situation I described.

Just like the Coasties said, take whatever measures are best to maintain the
safety of the passengers and vessel. Like any other time safety conflicts
with regulations I'll take the risk of being ALIVE for the bureaucratic
untangling. And without hyping the so-called 'risk'.

It's not about being sheep, by any stretch, it's about balance. Being free
to travel, accepting the overlapping issues. Being free to speak without
being silenced by insults. Being responsible to call those flailing hype to
task. But hey, feel free to be cowering assholes, it's a talent a good
number of you seem to have honed to a fine edge.

This conundrum has come up in aviation as well. The cases there have
been very simple and the same principle will probably be applied to
boat border crossings.

The FAA says, "Put safety first or we take your license."

Customs says, "Put customs clearance first or we fine you $5000."

Two different agencies, two different agendas, two different penalty
structures. The great thing about this being a free country is that
we get to choose which horn to get gored by.

The nice thing about the USCG being the gatekeepers is that they have
an institutional bias towards safety first. Once customs gets
involved, or perhaps someone in the USCG that came up post 911, you'll
probably get screwed whatever you do.

Custom's attitude will be, "What, you didn't listen to the weather
report and assure yourself that you could complete the trip to the
port of entry? That's what the $5000 fine is for, to make you more
careful."

--

Roger Long

On 22 Sep 2006 14:38:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

In any event, however, the text of the statute really has little to do with
the subject under discussion, which is sensible application of law and
regulation.

When push comes to shove, "sensible" almost never enters into the
discussion, only strict legal interpretation of what the law actually
says.

Assuming the quoted text is current law, there is a provision for both
"preliminary" and "electronic" check in. There is also a 24 hour
requirement that comes into play. It would appear that if forced to
anchor temporarily you should be within requirements if you call in
with a preliminary electronic check in, followed by a formal check in
within 24 hours.

Here in south Florida I have heard of several boats who called customs
as soon as they entered US waters, only to be told that they should
call again when actually docked.

.....
[US Customs] maintained that if I had anchored - even to safeguard the boat and the
lives of those onboard the vessel - I would have been subject to a $5000.
fine and possible arrest and confiscation of the vessel!!!

Talk about bureaucracy run amok...

I don't think you can really blame Homeland Security for this. Most
customs departments around the world have similar rules. In the South
Pacific lots of cruisers get in trouble by stopping before checking in
or after checking out. Force majeure is not an excuse in and of
itself. I ran into this myself when I checked out of Savusavu, Fiji
for New Zealand but decided to divert to Suva because of engine
failure. I got into modest trouble despite checking in with the
national radio watch and customs... I've taken my boat to 12
countries and all of them have anti-stopping laws with the least
restrictive being in French Polynesia where you can check in anywhere
with a gendarme (oddly New Caledonia has harsh anti-stopping policies).
Entering New Zealand, where the weather often gets nasty, people get
in trouble with customs when they stop in the outer anchorages of the
Bay of Islands to take shelter from the weather. Of course, if you
really think you are in danger of losing your vessel or getting hurt if
you don't take shelter then you should take shelter... However,
don't expect Customs anywhere to take you at your word. I know a guy
who was fined and given 48 hours to leave Australia for taking shelter
before checking in. In short, I don't think this is really a "war
on terror" issue but a kind of timeless friction between customs
officers and boaters...

--Tom.

PS. I suspect that if you ask a Canadian Customs officer if you can
stop before checking into Canada you'll get pretty much the same
answer you got from you US officer.

On 22 Sep 2006 15:41:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

You display a profound ignorance of the way the legal system operates.

OK, please enlighten us.

A good example of how it works is in the current "Newsweek". Lawyers
now advise divorcing women whose husbands have abused their children
not to bring it up. The woman appears to be making hysterical
accusations, she is holding out for complete custody with no
unsupervised visitation by the husband.
Meanwhile, the husband is saying that he would be PERFECTLY satisfied
with 50 - 50 custody. He seems reasonable, sober, and accommodating.
The upshot? The majority of abusing husbands end up with complete
custody!

And, you expect reasonable treatment when bringing you yacht back
across the border?

--

Roger Long



"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On 22 Sep 2006 15:41:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

You display a profound ignorance of the way the legal system
operates.

OK, please enlighten us.

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 19:03:13 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote:
A good example of how it works is in the current "Newsweek". Lawyers
now advise divorcing women whose husbands have abused their children
not to bring it up. The woman appears to be making hysterical
accusations, she is holding out for complete custody with no
unsupervised visitation by the husband.
Meanwhile, the husband is saying that he would be PERFECTLY satisfied
with 50 - 50 custody. He seems reasonable, sober, and accommodating.
The upshot? The majority of abusing husbands end up with complete
custody!

And, you expect reasonable treatment when bringing you yacht back
across the border?

There's no question to me that common sense and the law do not always
go together. I'm not a lawyer, but I think that if I were, I'd much
rather be arguing on the side of what the law actually says. That's
the point I was trying to make before my "profound ignorance" was
pointed out to me by our resident counselor.

Wayne B. wrote:
There's no question to me that common sense and the law do not always
go together. I'm not a lawyer, but I think that if I were, I'd much
rather be arguing on the side of what the law actually says.

Since lawyers write all the laws (and they are generally written
purposefully to be as verbose and obtuse as possible - just look at the
tax laws), generally only those lawyers understand what they wrote. That
is one reason why we can have so many judges so easily misinterpret
those laws. So why would anyone expect someone in customs or the Coast
Guard to understand what most judges can't?

holding out for complete custody

Hey, great another pathetic attempt to make a point by crying about those
"poor children"!

How utterly pathetic and COMPLETELY irrelevant to the argument at hand.