U.S. v. Steinfels, 84-2310

• Decision Date: 01 February 1985
• Docket Number: No. 84-2310,84-2310
• Citation: 753 F.2d 373
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Knut STEINFELS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 373

753 F.2d 373

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Knut STEINFELS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 84-2310.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 1, 1985.

Marvin Johnson, Charles Hultstrand, Phoenix, Ariz., for defendant-appellant.

Daniel K. Hedges, U.S. Atty., James R. Gough, Patrick H. Molloy, Asst. U.S. Attys., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal From the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas.

Before GOLDBERG, RUBIN and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.

JOHNSON, Circuit Judge:

Knut Steinfels ¹ was convicted by a jury of having introduced two imported automobiles into United States commerce by means of false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 542. ² Steinfels appeals his conviction, attacking the sufficiency of the evidence. Steinfels' convictions are affirmed.

Background

In January 1983, Karl Heinz Schruder, on behalf of V.I.P. Auto Sales, Inc., ³ in Scottsdale, Arizona, contacted Knut Steinfels of Im-& Export Co., in Hamburg, West Germany, to arrange the purchase of two Mercedes-Benz automobiles from Germany for resale in the United States. Schruder arranged for a letter of credit in the amount of $36,618 for the purchase of the cars in West Germany. ⁴ Schruder also made arrangements with Daniel Fagerstrom of International Customs Service, Inc. (ICS), a licensed customshouse broker and international freight forwarding service, for assistance in processing the cars through United States Customs upon their arrival in Houston, Texas.

The cars, one champagne-colored and the other silver, arrived at Houston Intercontinental Airport on February 18, 1983, aboard a KLM Airlines cargo flight from Hamburg, and were unloaded and stored in the KLM warehouse. On that same date, in accordance with routine United States Customs procedures, Senior United States Customs Inspector Findley Soule examined the automobiles at the KLM warehouse for import compliance, and noted that neither vehicle complied with United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Transportation (DOT) standards. ⁵ Inspector Soule also inspected the documents that accompanied the cars and noted that "the shipper was a Mr. Steinfels in Germany, that the cars were shipped to a Mr. Heinz Schweizer [Schruder], care of VIP Auto Sales in Scottsdale, Arizona, and that the shipment ... look[ed] like a commercial shipment." Record Vol. IV at 162.

On February 23, Steinfels and Schruder arrived at ICS to take delivery of the cars. Steinfels executed a Declaration for Free Entry of Unaccompanied Articles (Customs Form 3299) on each car in which he declared that the cars would be used by his brother ⁶ and himself for their personal transport while in the United States and that the cars would be returned to Germany within nine months. Steinfels also signed EPA Form 3520-1 and DOT HS Form 7 on each car declaring that the cars were for personal use and would not be sold in the United States. ⁷ These documents, along with xerox copies of Steinfels' and his brother's passports, were then submitted to United States Customs at Houston Intercontinental Airport by ICS's airport runner in order to effect the release of the cars from the control of Customs.

Because Inspector Soule's initial inspection of the automobiles and their accompanying documents indicated to him that the shipment was a commercial one, he was suspicious of the personal entry documents and refused to release the cars from Customs. Soule then requested that ICS furnish him with additional documentation stating the purpose of the importation, and specifically, the length of time that the vehicles would be in the United States.

In response to the inquiry by Customs, Schruder, purporting to be the president of V.I.P., executed a letter in which he disavowed any interest in the cars. At the same time, Steinfels signed an affidavit in which he declared that "[t]he purpose of my trip is personal education and tourism (sightseeing)" and that "[a]t the end of my trip, I plan to export the automobiles from Houston directly to West Germany...." ⁸ Government's Exh. 11. Fagerstrom then drove Steinfels and Schruder to the airport where they submitted the additional letter and affidavit, along with the Customs entry documents, EPA and DOT forms, and Steinfels' and his brother's passports, which they had originally submitted. Based on the above documentation, United States Customs released the two Mercedes-Benz automobiles from its control. ⁹ After securing possession of the cars from the KLM warehouse, Schruder and Steinfels drove them to the ICS warehouse, where Fagerstrom kept the silver car as security for unpaid air freight charges. Steinfels and Schruder then drove the champagne-colored Mercedes to Arizona.

On February 25, a United States Customs agent, posing as a potential buyer, called the V.I.P. offices and spoke with a V.I.P. salesman. The salesman informed the agent that V.I.P. had two Mercedes-Benz cars for sale, one champagne in color, and the other silver. Later that evening, Customs agents observed the champagne-colored Mercedes on the V.I.P. sales floor. Thereafter, the car was observed being driven away with V.I.P. license plates on it.

On March 1, Schruder phoned Fagerstrom at ICS and informed him that Mark Doerfler of V.I.P. would arrive in Houston on March 3 to pick up the silver Mercedes. Doerfler thereafter took possession of the car and drove it to Phoenix. Schruder then arranged to have German Auto Service of Phoenix install antipollution devices and air conditioners in the two cars. On March 9, United States Customs agents seized both cars at German Auto Service. The indictments against Steinfels and Schruder followed. ¹⁰

At trial, the Government proceeded on the theory that Steinfels and Schruder schemed together to bring the cars into the United States in avoidance of United States Customs duty by declaring them exempt, when in fact they intended to put the cars into commerce and to offer them for sale. Steinfels predicated his defense upon his alleged ignorance of United States Customs laws and his reliance upon Schruder's assurances that the "informal" procedures they followed were perfectly acceptable.

On appeal, Steinfels contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. ¹¹

Discussion

I. Standard of Review

In examining Steinfels' attack on the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court must decide whether "a reasonable trier of fact could find that the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Bell, 678 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir.1982) (en banc), aff'd on other grounds, 462 U.S. 356, 103 S.Ct. 2398, 76 L.Ed.2d 638 (1983). In so doing, we must view the evidence and the inferences that may be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the jury verdict. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 469, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942).

II. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 542

This Circuit has set forth four essential elements that the Government must prove in order to secure a conviction under section 542: (1) the defendant made a false statement, (2) which was material and which (3) he knew to be false, by which (4) he introduced or attempted to introduce imported goods into United States commerce. United States v. Ven-Fuel, Inc., 602 F.2d 747, 752-53 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 905, 100 S.Ct. 2987, 64 L.Ed.2d 854 (1980); accord United States v. Ackerman, 704 F.2d 1344, 1347 (5th Cir.1983). Steinfels contends that the Government failed to prove that he violated section 542 as a matter of law because the false statements were made after the cars had already been introduced into United States commerce.

In sole reliance upon United States v. Twenty-Five Packages of Panama Hats, 231 U.S. 358, 34 S.Ct. 63, 58 L.Ed. 267 (1913), Steinfels argues that the cars were introduced into commerce within the meaning of the statute at the moment that they were unloaded from the plane in Houston and became subject to the control of United States Customs. In Panama Hats, the Supreme Court had occasion to construe the meaning of "introduce or attempt to introduce into commerce" within the intendment of the predecessor statute to the present section 542. There, the Government brought forfeiture proceedings against the defendant hats for fraud by foreign consignors. The hats had been fraudulently undervalued by consignors in a foreign country and were consigned to a merchant in New York. Although the goods had not technically entered at the New York customshouse, they had been unloaded from a ship and stored in general order. When the hats had not been claimed by the consignee within one year, the Government instituted forfeiture proceedings against the merchandise. In rejecting the claimant's argument that there had been no entry of the goods, the Court stated:

[W]hen the goods, fraudulently undervalued and consigned to a person in New York, arrived at the port of entry, there was an attempt to introduce them into the commerce of the United States. When they were unloaded and placed in general order, they were actually introduced into that commerce, within the meaning of the statute intended to prevent frauds on the customs.

231 U.S. at 362, 34 S.Ct. at 65. Thus, in reliance upon the above quoted language, Steinfels maintains that his subsequent false statements in the Customs, DOT, and EPA documents did not cause the automobiles to enter the commerce of the United States because the vehicles had already been introduced into commerce. We reject Steinfels' overly restrictive construction of the Panama Hats language.

In essence, Steinfels urges this Court to construe Panama Hats and section 542 as defining introduction into commerce as occurring at one instant in time. This we cannot do. Under our reading of...