| |
| | Pentax v. Robison |
 | | Reaching the merits, we concluded that Pentax, Asahi Optical Co., Ltd., and Asahi Optical (Int’l), Ltd. (collectively “plaintiffs”) were “not required to tender the 10 percent ad valorem marking duties that arise under section 1304(f) to receive prior disclosure treatment.” Id. |
 | | However, we deny the government’s petition to the extent that it seeks consideration of the theory that the false entry papers were an independent violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1592(a), thus permitting recovery of marking duties under 19 U.S.C. § 1592(d). |
 | | Pentax also submitted incorrect entry documents, including invoices and declarations to Customs, indicating that the goods were made in Hong Kong. |
| www.ll.georgetown.edu /federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1320.html (946 words) |
|