19 U.S.C. § 1602
Seizure; report to customs officer
It shall be the duty of any officer, agent, or other person authorized by law to make seizures of merchandise or baggage subject to seizure for violation of the customs laws, to report every such seizure immediately to the appropriate customs officer for the district in which such violation occurred, and to turn over and deliver to such customs officer any vessel, vehicle, aircraft, merchandise, or baggage seized by him, and to report immediately to such customs officer every violation of the customs laws.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 95
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1932–2025 · leading case: United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43 (1993).
United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43 (1993). “Title 19 U. S. C. § 1602 requires that a customs agent "report immediately" to a customs officer every seizure for violation of the customs laws, and every violation of the customs laws.”
States Marine Lines, Inc. v. George P. Shultz, Sec'y of the Treasury, 498 F.2d 1146 (4th Cir. 1974). “Title 19 U.S.C. § 1602 provides: “It shall be the duty of any officer, agent or other person authorized by law to make seizures of merchandise or baggage subject to seizure for violation of the customs laws, to report every such seizure immediately to the appropriate customs…”
United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996). “Because forfeiture *289 proceedings under the customs laws are in rem, see 19 U. S. C. § 1602 et seq., it is clear that Congress intended that a forfeiture under § 881 or § 981, like the forfeiture reviewed in 89 Firearms, would be a proceeding in rem.”
United States v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred & Fifty Dollars, 461 U.S. 555 (1983). “Since the Bank Secrecy Act does not specify the procedures to be followed in seizing monetary instruments, the Customs Service generally follows the procedures governing forfeitures for violations of the customs laws, as set forth in 19 U. S. C. § 1602 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp.”
United States v. Parcel of Rumson, NJ, Land, 507 U.S. 111 (1993). “Subsection 881(d) provides that forfeitures under *135 § 881 are governed by the procedures applicable to "summary and judicial forfeiture, and condemnation of property for violation of the customs laws," set forth in 19 U. S. C. § 1602 et seq. It is clear from these procedures…”
People v. Four Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars, 2011 IL App (4th) 100528 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “¶ 47 One of the arguments that the claimant made on appeal was that the government’s forfeiture action was time-barred because the government had failed to comply with the internal timing requirements in sections 1602 through 1604 of title 19 of the United States Code ( 19…”
Terry L. Madewell v. Mike Downs, Anthony P. Grootens, & John Prine, 68 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 1995). “Provisions of the Tariff Act, specifically 19 U.S.C. § 1602 , impose a duty to report and to turn over property seized in violation of the customs laws of the United States.”
James L. Lewis v. United States, 70 F.3d 597 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “Lewis relies on 19 U.S.C. §§ 1602 and 1603(b), which state in relevant part: It shall be the duty of any officer, agent, or other person authorized by law to make seizures .”
United States v. Thirty-Seven (37) Photographs, 402 U.S. 363 (1971). “" [2] The United States urges that we find time limits in 19 U. S. C. §§ 1602 and 1604. Section 1602 provides that customs agents who seize goods must "report every such seizure immediately" to the collector of the district, while § 1604 provides that, once a case has been…”
United States v. One 1964 Mg, Serial No. 64ghn3l34408, Etc., 408 F. Supp. 1025 (W.D. Wash. 1976). “Briefly stated, Bronk and Goldberg have four arguments against allowing forfeiture in this case: (1) That the Government did not immediately inquire into the facts of the case and did not forthwith institute court proceedings as required by 19 U.S.C.A. § 1602 et seq., (2) that…”
Kirkland v. State Ex Rel. Baxley, 340 So. 2d 1121 (Ala. Civ. App. 1976). “§ 781-89 , are governed by the customs laws procedures delineated in 19 U.S.C. § 1602 , et seq. 19 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq.”
United States v. Eleven Thousand Five Hundred & Eighty Dollars ($11,580) in United States Currency, 454 F. Supp. 376 (M.D. Fla. 1978). “1028 where that Court stated: the court agrees with the government that 19 U.S.C.A. § 1602 et seq. is inapplicable here because monetary instruments were seized under authority of 31 U.”
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.