The federal regulations that implement CITES provide that "in order to import into the United States any wildlife ... listed in Appendix II from any foreign country, a valid foreign export permit issued by the country of origin ... must be obtained prior to such importation." See United States v. (1) 30 Foot Morgan, 597 F.Supp.
Levine testified that he was concerned about the importation of brotogeris versicolorus because they had not "recently been coming out of Peru, and they were not listed as a bird in [19]83 to be shipped out." section 3372(a)(2)(A).
Claimant did not consult with anyone in the United States to determine whether the birds could be lawfully exported from Peru. I have the option of a white winged parakeet or a green cheek conure. He testified that he then had several hunters in Peru capture the parakeets and transport the birds to his farm in Peru.
"The Claimant raises several other challenges to the instant forfeiture, none of which this Court finds persuasive. The strict liability forfeiture section of these amendments would allow the protection of various species from harmful illegal trade by withdrawing illegal shipments from the marketplace even when the violation itself is inadvertent.The Act provides for forfeiture of the fish, wildlife and plants on a strict liability basis because the merchandise is, in effect, contraband. The Court concludes that the consideration of this issue fairly furthers the merits of this action and in no unjust way prejudices the Claimant's case.
Additionally, as the Court has previously noted, the validity of a CITES permit is a requirement of the laws of the United States as well. Prieto: Director Pastor will also testify that usually the procedure that is used to issue original CITES permits is you issue an original and two copies. He cannot avoid the penalty for noncompliance by claiming that compliance was inconvenient or uneconomical.The Court finds that the Claimant exercised inadequate care in the course of importing these parakeets. United States v. One 1983 Homemade Vessel Named Barracuda, 625 F.Supp. After receiving this information, Agent Medina located the permit and discovered that the birds were in a quarantine station.During a second conversation with Agent Shoemaker, Agent Medina was informed that the brotogeris versicolorus could not be exported from Peru. Director Pimentel, was authorized to sign CITES permits, presuming the validity of the permit in all other respects.
Claimant, by the admission of its president, Dr. Bernard Levine, a licensed veterinarian, is a major importer of wildlife.
They only contain one species, the species that was initially authorized to be exported, that is, the brotogeris pyrrhopterus.He will also testify that the permit was never signed by the shipper, the man wanting to export--Trial Transcript at 12-13.
Cespedes finally testified that on March 29, 1985, he placed the parakeets on a cargo plane and shipped them to the United States.Cespedes testified that he knew up until January of 1985, that the species brotogeris versicolorus could not be exported from Peru. In Peru, the species brotogeris versicolorus is found only in the forest or jungle region of that country, other than a small colony of the birds (approximately 100 specimens) descended from escaped pet parakeets and living in the Lima area. Treatment will depend upon the diagnosis. No. Clutch Size: 3-6 white eggs; but average 5 eggs Incubation: 23 days from the date the female stay the whole time in […]
A. Thus, the treaty clearly requires member nations to ensure the validity of the exportation of another nation's protected wildlife for that benefit of that nation.
section 1540(e)(5) (incorporating forfeiture provisions found in customs laws into Endangered Species Act); 16 U.S.C. Plaintiff asserts that this defense is not available in forfeiture actions pursuant to the Act. The Plaintiff has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that this shipment was in violation of the Lacey Act.The Endangered Species Act provides, in pertinent part, that it is "unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to engage in any trade in any specimens contrary to the provisions of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species." Claimant relied on the representation of his Peruvian shipper, Miguel Cespedes, as to the legality of the shipment, although, in the past, the Claimant had seen fit to send employees abroad to personally verify the legality of wildlife shipments.9. 97-123, 97th Cong. The fact that merchandise such as endangered species can be imported under special circumstances for which a federal permit has been does not disqualify it as contraband.