(a) Seizures by Customs officers. Property may be seized, if available, by any Customs officer who has reasonable cause to believe that any law or regulation enforced by Customs and Border Protection or Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been violated, by reason of which the property has become subject to seizure or forfeiture. This paragraph does not authorize seizure when seizure or forfeiture is restricted by law or regulation (see, for example, § 162.75), nor does it authorize a remedy other than seizure when seizure or forfeiture is required by law or regulation. A receipt for seized property shall be given at the time of seizure to the person from whom the property is seized.
(b) Seizure by persons other than Customs officers. The port director may adopt a seizure made by a person other than a Customs officer if such port director has reasonable cause to believe that the property is subject to forfeiture under the Customs laws.
(c) Seizure by State official. If a duly constituted State official has seized any merchandise, vessel, aircraft, vehicle, or other conveyance under provisions of the statutes of such State, such property shall not be seized by a Customs officer unless the property is voluntarily turned over to him to be proceeded against under the Federal statutes.
[T.D. 72-211, 37 FR 16488, Aug. 15, 1972, as amended by T.D. 79-160, 44 FR 31956, June 4, 1979; USCBP-2006-0122, 73 FR 9011, Feb. 19, 2008]
Notes of Decisions
Kam-Almez v. United States, 682 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
· cites it 2× “See 19 C.F.R. § 162.21 (a) (“A receipt for seized property shall be given at the time of seizure to the person from whom the prop- erty is seized.”
Kam-Almaz v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 84 (Fed. Cl. 2011).
· cites it 3× “” 19 C.F.R. § 162.21 . Plaintiff argues that the laptop was not seized according to the police power but rather according to an “administrative *89 border search for security purposes.”
United States v. Sierra-Garcia, 760 F. Supp. 252 (E.D.N.Y 1991).
“21 provides: Property may be seized, if available, by any Customs Officer who has reasonable cause to believe that any law or regulation enforced by the Customs Service has been violated, by reason of which the property has become subject to seizure or forfeiture.”
Ivers v. United States, 581 F.2d 1362 (9th Cir. 1978).
“, 19 C.F.R. § 162.21 , which provides, in part: (a) Seizures by Customs officers.”
United States v. Molt, 444 F. Supp. 491 (E.D. Pa. 1978).
“See also 19 C.F.R. § 162.21 (a): Seizures by Customs Officers: Any Customs officer having reasonable cause to believe that any law, the enforcement of which is within the jurisdiction of the Customs Service, has been violated by reason of which any property has become subject to…”
United States v. 4,432 Mastercases of Cigarettes, 448 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 2× “United States Customs & Border Protection, Foreign Trade Zones Manual 197-98 (2003) (citing 19 C.F.R. § 162.21 ). 4 These numerous and specific regulations should have provided sufficient notice to Intrigue “that its property and records will from *1178 time to time be inspected…”
People v. LePera, 197 A.D.2d 43 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994).
· cites it 2× “At the time defendant’s records were seized, 19 CFR 162.21 (a) provided, in pertinent part: "Seizures by Customs officers.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.