U.S. Code » Title 19 » Chapter CHAPTER 4— TARIFF ACT OF 1930 › Subtitle SUBTITLE III— ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS › Part Part V— Enforcement Provisions

19 U.S.C. § 1604

Seizure; prosecution 11 See Codification note below.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 19 CasesGoogle Scholar

It shall be the duty of the Attorney General of the United States immediately to inquire into the facts of cases reported to him by customs officers and the laws applicable thereto, and if it appears probable that any fine, penalty, or forfeiture has been incurred by reason of such 1 violation, for the recovery of which the institution of proceedings in the United States district court or the Court of International Trade is necessary, forthwith to cause the proper proceedings to be commenced and prosecuted, without delay, for the recovery of such fine, penalty, or forfeiture in such case provided, unless, upon inquiry and examination, the Attorney General decides that such proceedings can not probably be sustained or that the ends of public justice do not require that they should be instituted or prosecuted, in which case he shall report the facts to the Secretary of the Treasury for his direction in the premises.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 53 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1938–2022 · leading case: United States v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred & Fifty Dollars, 461 U.S. 555 (1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred & Fifty Dollars, 461 U.S. 555 (1983). · cites it 2× “" 19 U. S. C. § 1604 (1976 ed., Supp. V). After a case is reported to the United States Attorney for institution of legal proceedings, no administrative action may be taken on any petition for remission or mitigation.”
Gerardo Serrano v. U.S. Customs & Border, 975 F.3d 488 (5th Cir. 2020). “to the United States attorney for the district in which such violation has occurred, or in which such seizure was made”); see also 19 U.S.C. § 1604 (“It shall be the duty of the Attorney General of the United States immediately to inquire 13 Recall that the statute provides for…”
Marshall Leasing, Inc., a Washington Corp. v. United States of Am., United States Dep't of Just., Drug Enf't Admin., 893 F.2d 1096 (9th Cir. 1990). · cites it 3× “19 U.S.C. §§ 1604 , 1607, 1608, 1610. On July 16,1985, appellant received written notice from the DEA that it had adopted a seizure of the Mercedes by DEA agents, which the notice stated they had effected on June 12, 1985.”
People v. One 1998 GMC, 2011 IL 110236 (Ill. 2011). “at 558 (quoting 19 U.S.C. § 1604 ). But it is clear from the Court’s holding that the “without delay” language cannot mean absolutely no delays, as the Court recognized that the filing of the proceedings could be reasonably delayed during pendency of the criminal charges without…”
People v. ONE 1998 GMC, 960 N.E.2d 1071 (Ill. 2011). · cites it 2× “Finally, the statute provided that once a case is reported to the United States Attorney for legal proceedings, *1081 no administrative action may be taken on any petition for remission or mitigation.”
Ruby Nnadi v. Robert Richter, Dist. Dir., United States Customs Serv., 976 F.2d 682 (11th Cir. 1992). · cites it 2× “19 U.S.C. § 1604 (emphasis added). In this case, the Customs Service sent Nnadi the mandated written notice along with an explanation of how to challenge the forfeiture by filing a claim and a cost bond.”
People v. Four Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars, 2011 IL App (4th) 100528 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 2× “at 63 (quoting 19 U.S.C. § 1604 (1988)). There appeared to be no dispute that waiting 4 1/2 years after the discovery of the marijuana to file the forfeiture action failed to conform to the adverbs “immediately,” “promptly,” and “forthwith.”
States Marine Lines, Inc. v. George P. Shultz, Sec'y of the Treasury, 498 F.2d 1146 (4th Cir. 1974). · cites it 2× “” Title 19 U.S.C. § 1604 provides: “It shall be the duty of every United States attorney immediately to inquire into the facts of cases reported to him by customs officers and the laws applicable thereto, and if it appears probable that any fine, penalty or forfeiture has been…”
United States v. One (1) Douglas A-26B Aircraft, 436 F. Supp. 1292 (S.D. Ga. 1977). · cites it 2× “That officer must, in turn, “immediately” inquire into the facts and, if warranted, institute proper proceedings in the district court to be prosecuted “without delay” for recovery of the fine, penalty or forfeiture.”
United States v. I. Marco L. Laurenti, E. Giorgio L. Laurenti, Lindar Mfg. Corp., Rockhill Cutlery Ltd., Rockwell Co., 581 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1978). · cites it 3× “Rather, it was grounded on the district court’s interpretation of 19 U.S.C. § 1604 , 4 a provision of the Tariff Act of 1930.”
Langbord v. United States Dep't of the Treasury, 783 F.3d 441 (3rd Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “(citing 19 U.S.C. § 1604 ). The Court, through Justice O’Connor writing for eight Justices, rejected the claimant’s argument that the Government’s “dilatory” commencement of civil forfeiture violated the claimant’s right to due process.”
United States v. Forty-Five Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Dollars ($45,940) in United States Currency (Terry C. McKay Claimant), 739 F.2d 792 (2d Cir. 1984). “Upon receipt of a report, the United States Attorney is required *798 ‘immediately to inquire into the facts’ and, if it appears probable that a forfeiture has been incurred, ‘forthwith to cause the proper proceedings to be commenced and prosecuted, without delay.”
Show all 53 citing cases →
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.