19 U.S.C. § 1607

Seizure; value $500,000 or less, prohibited merchandise, transporting conveyances

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

(a) Notice of seizureIf—(1) the value of such seized vessel, vehicle, aircraft, merchandise, or baggage does not exceed $500,000;(2) such seized merchandise is merchandise the importation of which is prohibited;(3) such seized vessel, vehicle, or aircraft was used to import, export, transport, or store any controlled substance or listed chemical; or(4) such seized merchandise is any monetary instrument within the meaning of section 5312(a)(3) of title 31;the appropriate customs officer shall cause a notice of the seizure of such articles and the intention to forfeit and sell or otherwise dispose of the same according to law to be published for at least three successive weeks in such manner as the Secretary of the Treasury may direct. Written notice of seizure together with information on the applicable procedures shall be sent to each party who appears to have an interest in the seized article.(b) “Controlled substance” and “listed chemical” defined

As used in this section, the terms “controlled substance” and “listed chemical” have the meaning given such terms in section 802 of title 21.

The Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall submit to the Congress, by no later than February 1 of each fiscal year, a report on the total dollar value of uncontested seizures of monetary instruments having a value of over $100,000 which, or the proceeds of which, have not been deposited into the Customs Forfeiture Fund under section 1613b of this title within 120 days of seizure, as of the end of the previous fiscal year.

(June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title IV, § 607, 46 Stat. 754; June 25, 1938, ch. 679, § 28(a), 52 Stat. 1089; Sept. 1, 1954, ch. 1213, title V, § 506, 68 Stat. 1141; Pub. L. 91–271, title III, § 301(ee), June 2, 1970, 84 Stat. 291; Pub. L. 95–410, title I, § 111(a), Oct. 3, 1978, 92 Stat. 897; Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 311, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2053; Pub. L. 98–573, title II, § 213(a)(4), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2984; Pub. L. 101–382, title I, § 122, Aug. 20, 1990, 104 Stat. 642; Pub. L. 104–237, title II, § 201(c), Oct. 3, 1996, 110 Stat. 3101; Pub. L. 114–125, title VIII, § 802(d)(2), Feb. 24, 2016, 130 Stat. 210.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in act Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 356, title IV, § 607, 42 Stat. 985. That section was superseded by section 607 of act June 17, 1930, comprising this section, and repealed by section 651(a)(1) of the 1930 act.

Prior provisions for publication or posting of notice of seizure, requiring claimants to appear and file their claim, when the appraised value did not exceed $500, were contained in R.S. § 3075, prior to repeal by act Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 356, title IV, § 642, 42 Stat. 989.

Amendments

1996—Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 104–237, § 201(c)(1), inserted “or listed chemical” after “controlled substance”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104–237, § 201(c)(2), amended subsec. (b) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (b) read as follows: “As used in this section, the term ‘controlled substance’ has the meaning given that term in section 802 of title 21.”

1990—Pub. L. 101–382, § 122(6), substituted “$500,000” for “$100,000” in section catchline.

Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 101–382, § 122(1), substituted “$500,000” for “$100,000”.

Subsec. (a)(4). Pub. L. 101–382, § 122(2)–(4), added par. (4).

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 101–382, § 122(5), added subsec. (c).

1984—Pub. L. 98–573 amended section generally. See explanation below for amendment by Pub. L. 98–473.

Pub. L. 98–473 amended section generally in manner substantially identical to amendment by Pub. L. 98–573, on which text of section is based. Prior to amendment, section read as follows: “If such value of such vessel, vehicle, merchandise, or baggage does not exceed $10,000, the appropriate customs officer shall cause a notice of the seizure of such articles and the intention to forfeit and sell or otherwise dispose of the same according to law to be published for at least three successive weeks in such manner as the Secretary of the Treasury may direct. For the purposes of this section and sections 1610 and 1612 of this title merchandise the importation of which is prohibited shall be held not to exceed $10,000 in value.”

1978—Pub. L. 95–410 substituted “$10,000” for “$2,500” wherever appearing.

1970—Pub. L. 91–271 substituted reference to appropriate customs officer for reference to collector, and struck out reference to appraiser’s return of value.

1954—Act Sept. 1, 1954, substituted “$2,500” for “$1,000” wherever appearing.

1938—Act June 25, 1938, substituted “forfeit and sell or otherwise dispose of the same according to law” for “forfeit and sell the same”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesChange of Name

“Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection” substituted for “Commissioner of Customs” in subsec. (c) on authority of section 802(d)(2) of Pub. L. 114–125, set out as a note under section 211 of Title 6, Domestic Security.

Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–573 effective Oct. 15, 1984, see section 214(e) of Pub. L. 98–573, set out as a note under section 1304 of this title.

Effective Date of 1970 Amendment

For effective date of amendment by Pub. L. 91–271, see section 203 of Pub. L. 91–271, set out as a note under section 1500 of this title.

Effective Date of 1938 Amendment

Amendment by act June 25, 1938, effective on thirtieth day following June 25, 1938, except as otherwise specifically provided, see section 37 of act June 25, 1938, set out as a note under section 1401 of this title.

Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions, personnel, assets, and liabilities of the United States Customs Service of the Department of the Treasury, including functions of the Secretary of the Treasury relating thereto, to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see sections 203(1), 551(d), 552(d), and 557 of Title 6, Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6. For establishment of U.S. Customs and Border Protection in the Department of Homeland Security, treated as if included in Pub. L. 107–296 as of Nov. 25, 2002, see section 211 of Title 6, as amended generally by Pub. L. 114–125, and section 802(b) of Pub. L. 114–125, set out as a note under section 211 of Title 6.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 313 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1938–2026 · leading case: Langbord v. United States Dep't of the Treasury, 832 F.3d 170 (3rd Cir. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Langbord v. United States Dep't of the Treasury, 832 F.3d 170 (3rd Cir. 2016). · cites it 8× “§ 983 (a)(1)(A); 19 U.S.C. § 1607 (a). If a seized asset claim is filed, the nonjudicial forfeiture cannot proceed, and the government then has 90 days to file a complaint for judicial forfeiture or to return the property pending the filing of a complaint.”

Maria Jimena Ibarra v. United States of Am. Unknown Gov't Officers, 120 F.3d 472 (4th Cir. 1997). · cites it 6× “Ibarra was served with a copy of the notice of the seizure and forfeiture in conformity with 19 U.S.C.A. § 1607 (a) 2 and 21 C.F.R. § 1316.”

United States v. Donald Lawrence Ritchie, Heather Horner, Claimant-Appellant, 342 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “” 19 U.S.C. § 1607 (a). Federal regulations provide further guidance, instructing that notice *910 must identify the time, cause, and place of the seizure, and must instruct potential claimants on how to file a claim with the DEA.”

Fernando Mesa Valderrama v. United States, 417 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 2005). · cites it 5× “First, according to Mesa, Customs’s summary forfeiture of the check was unlawful because a non-endorsed check is not a monetary instrument or any other kind of property that may be summarily forfeited in an administrative forfeiture under 19 U.S.C. § 1607 . 2 Mesa asserts that…”

Vereda, Ltda. v. United States, 271 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2001). · cites it 3× “Pursuant to the applicable customs statute, 19 U.S.C. § 1607 (a), if an item seized under 21 U.”

United States v. Dennis Edward Elias, 921 F.2d 870 (9th Cir. 1990). · cites it 3× “The procedure invoked by the government pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1607 and 21 U.S.C. § 881 -l(d) provided Elias with the procedural tools to seek judicial review of the lawfulness of the seizure of his property.”

Langbord v. United States Dep't of the Treasury, 783 F.3d 441 (3rd Cir. 2015). · cites it 12× “See 19 U.S.C. § 1607 (a).9 Section 1607(a) does not speak to the manner or timing of the notice; that is what § 983(a)(1) does.”

United States v. Gonzalez Gonzalez, 257 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “See 19 U.S.C. § 1607 (a) (directing, in relevant part, that “[w]ritten notice of seizure together with information on the applicable procedures [for contesting forfeiture] shall be sent to each party who appears to have an interest in the seized article”).”

United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996). · cites it 2× “Forfeitures under either statute are governed by 19 U. S. C. § 1607 , which provides that actual notice of the impending forfeiture is unnecessary when the Government cannot identify any party with an interest in the seized article, and by § 1609, which provides that seized…”

United States v. $38,000.00 in United States Currency, David English & Michael William English, Claimants-Appellants, 816 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1987). · cites it 3× “76 (1984) (emphasis added); 19 U.S.C. § 1607 (1984); see 21 C.F.R. § 1316.”

United States v. Bouler, 927 F. Supp. 911 (W.D.N.C. 1996). · cites it 15× “19 U.S.C. § 1607 (a). The statute then provides means through which a person may claim an interest in the seized property and, upon submission of a claim, the case is transferred to the U.”

United States v. Commty Hsing Fund, 304 F. App'x 334 (5th Cir. 2008). · cites it 12× “§ 853 (n)(1), decisions applying 19 U.S.C. § 1607 (a) provide guidance.3 The Government must affirmatively establish that CHF had direct written notice of the forfeiture.”

Show all 313 citing cases →

— 19 U.S.C. § 1607(a) — 2 cases

Faldraga v. Carnes, 674 F. Supp. 845 (S.D. Fla. 1987).

Ibarra v. United States (4th Cir. 1997).

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.