With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of Palzer’s knowledge. Because the government introduced sufficient proof to enable a reasonable jury to conclude that Palzer knew it was not illegal to bring more than $5,000 into the country, Palzer was not entitled to an acquittal on the basis of the “exculpatory no” doctrine. Accordingly, we conclude that it would not violate double jeopardy if the government chooses to retry him on Count I of the indictment. B. Challenge to Count II of the Indictment Palzer argues that Count II of the indictment cannot support a criminal conviction because the form that he failed to fill out — Customs Form 4790 — is an administrative rule that was improperly promulgated, not published, and therefore void. Compare United States v. $200,000 in United States Currency, 590 F.Supp. 866 (S.D.Fla.1984) (<HOLDING>), with United States v. Lagasse, No. 83-61-1

A: holding that form 4790 is a rule that requires notice and comment prior to adoption and publication in the federal register before it can support a forfeiture action based on an individuals failure to fill out the form
B: holding that the use of the written form is mandatory and that failure to use the written form as mandated is reversible error
C: holding that substantive changes made by administrative agencies in regulations are required to comply with certain notice and comment requirements which include publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking in the federal register an opportunity for interested persons to comment on that notice and after consideration of these comments publication of the final rule with a general statement of its basis and purpose citing 5 usc  553b c
D: holding that form 4790 is not an administrative rule but is merely incidental to the statute and regulations and therefore false statements on the form can lead to criminal prosecution
A.