United States v. Wagner, 23766.
Decision Date | 25 November 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 23766.,23766. |
Citation | 434 F.2d 627 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Libelant-Appellee, v. Eugene WAGNER, Respondent-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Robert G. White (argued), of Glad & Tuttle, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Philip Malinsky (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., Larry L. Dier, Frederick M. Brosio, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., Chief of Civil Division, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before BROWNING, CARTER and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges.
Wagner was charged by "libel of information" with importing certain orthopedic devices by means of false statements on invoices in violation of 19 U.S. C. §§ 1481, 1484, and 1485. The Government alleged that, as a result of these violations, the devices should be forfeited pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1592. The district court granted the forfeiture. We affirm.
Wagner was a dealer in orthopedic devices. In the past, he had purchased certain "artificial knees" from a manufacturer in Soviet Occupied East Germany for importation into the United States. Wagner paid the appropriate tariff, but had substantial difficulty in selling the devices because of the mandatory labeling that disclosed their country of origin. Thereafter, Wagner conceived and implemented a plan whereby certain manufacturing functions would be performed in East Germany, after which the devices would be sent to Switzerland for further processing and assembly, and finally imported to the United States. It was Wagner's purpose to have sufficient work performed on the devices in Switzerland to entitle him to declare Switzerland as their country of origin. The devices in question were processed according to Wagner's plan, and were labeled and invoiced for importation with Switzerland as the declared country of origin. The Government filed a libel of information alleging that East Germany should have been declared as the country of origin and, accordingly, that Wagner had made false statements on the importation invoices and in the labeling of the devices.
The term "country of origin" is defined in 19 C.F.R. § 11.8(c), which provides:
After reviewing the evidence and examining the nature and extent of manufacture that was performed in the respective countries, the district court made the following findings of fact:
Wagner argues on appeal that the record does not support these findings. After reviewing the record, we cannot determine that the court's findings were clearly erroneous. Lundgren v. Freeman (9 Cir. 1962), 307 F.2d 104.
Wagner also argues that the district court erred by failing to find an intent to violate the law. The court made the following finding:
Wagner cites this circuit's decision in Jen Dao Chen v. United States (9 Cir. 1967), 385 F.2d 939, for the proposition that "knowing intent" to violate the law is a prerequisite to forfeiture under 19 U.S.C. § 1592. The Government contends that Chen is in conflict with other decisions of this circuit in United States v. Andrade, (9 Cir. 1950), 181 F.2d 42, and United States v. Bride (9 Cir. 1962), 308 F.2d 470. Andrade and Bride hold that the innocence of the claimant of a vehicle used in certain illegal pursuits is not a valid defense to forfeiture.
We find no conflict in those decisions. Here the proceedings for forfeiture were pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1592. In Andrade, the transactions involving the car were in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 2553 and 2557 and 21 U.S.C. § 174. The forfeiture proceedings were pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §§ 781 and 782 and 19 U.S.C. § 1615. In Bride, the automobiles were used in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 4411 and 4412, and the forfeiture proceedings were pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7302.
Chen was a proceeding under 19 U.S.C. §...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Ven-Fuel, Inc.
...automobiles were covered by certificates of conformity from the United States Environmental Protection Agency); United States v. Wagner, 434 F.2d 627, 627-28 (9th Cir.1970) The rule of Caldwell, Wood, Cliquot's, Boyd, and their progeny renders statutorily indigestible the putrescent fruit o......
-
Von Neumann v. U.S.
...declare and yet failed to declare his car is a factual one, which we will not overturn unless clearly erroneous. United States v. Wagner, 434 F.2d 627, 628-29 (9th Cir. 1970). See Vesey v. United States, 626 F.2d 627, 629 (9th Cir. 1980). The record fully supports the district court's concl......
-
US v. Jac Natori Co., Ltd., Court No. 90-08-00445.
...as intentional; and, if tending to defraud the revenue that intent must be ascribed to the false invoice"); United States v. Wagner, 434 F.2d 627, 628 (9th Cir.1970) ("knowing intent" not required for forfeiture under 19 U.S.C. § 1592 (1970)). In short, the defendant cannot support its cont......
-
U.S. v. Fifty-Three (53) Eclectus Parrots, FIFTY-THREE
...false declaration in violation of § 1592 was a trespasser with respect to the property he falsely declared. In United States v. Wagner, 434 F.2d 627, 628-29 (9th Cir. 1970), we limited the Chen case based upon these two factors. Since the language of § 1527 does not suggest the culpability ......