19 C.F.R. § 171.13
Limitations on consideration of petitions
(a) Cases referred for institution of legal proceedings. No action will be taken on any petition after the case has been referred to the Department of Justice for institution of legal proceedings. The petition will be forwarded to the Department of Justice.
(b) Conveyance awarded for official use. No petition for remission of forfeiture of a seized conveyance which has been forfeited and retained for official use will be considered unless it is filed before final disposition of the property is made. This does not affect petitions for restoration of proceeds of sale filed pursuant to the provisions of section 613 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1613).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1974–1989 · leading case: State v. Rice, 626 P.2d 104 (Alaska 1981).
State v. Rice, 626 P.2d 104 (Alaska 1981). “19 CFR § 171.13 (a). These provisions are also extended to those individuals holding chattel mortgages or conditional sales contracts.”
Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663 (1974). “19 CFR § 171.13 (a). These provisions are also extended to those individuals holding chattel mortgages or conditional sales contracts.”
State v. One 1984 Toyota Truck, 533 A.2d 659 (Md. 1987). “§ 1618 , and 19 C.F.R. 171.13(b). [3] While the Federal Act's "conveyance" provisions, like those of the Maryland Act, contained no "innocent owner" defense, the Federal Act did provide for such a defense in the portion dealing with forfeiture of money and the like.”
United States v. George Douglas Vaughn, 797 F.2d 1485 (9th Cir. 1986). “” 19 C.F.R. § 171.13 . Customs officials are also instructed to consider, among other factors, whether the lessee provided business and personal references to the owner, and whether there was an agreement “that the property would be used only in accordance with the law.”
United States v. One 1977 Mercedes Benz, 450 SEL, VIN 11603302064538, 708 F.2d 444 (9th Cir. 1983). “19 C.F.R. § 171.13 (a) (1982). . Both parties argued the propriety of the dismissal of the third-party complaint with reference to Fed.”
Devito v. United States, Dept. of Just., Etc., 520 F. Supp. 127 (E.D. Pa. 1981). “The petitioner shall also submit evidence that prior to parting with the property he did not know, nor have reasonable cause to believe, that the property would be used to violate Customs or other laws, and that he did not know or have reason to believe that the violator had a…”
United States v. One 1982 Oldsmobile Cutlass VD 1GAM47A4CM453310, 709 F. Supp. 1542 (W.D. Okla. 1989). “This procedure permits “any person interested in ” property seized to “seek remission or mitigation of forfeiture” and provides that such remission or mitigation may be granted where the “forfeiture was incurred without any willful negligence or any intention on the part of the…”
— 19 C.F.R. § 171.13(b) — 1 case
State v. One 1984 Toyota Truck, 533 A.2d 659 (Md. 1987). “§ 1618 , and 19 C.F.R. 171.13(b). [3] While the Federal Act's "conveyance" provisions, like those of the Maryland Act, contained no "innocent owner" defense, the Federal Act did provide for such a defense in the portion dealing with forfeiture of money and the like.”
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.