Any person claiming such vessel, vehicle, aircraft, merchandise, or baggage may at any time within twenty days from the date of the first publication of the notice of seizure file with the appropriate customs officer a claim stating his interest therein. Upon the filing of such claim, and the giving of a bond to the United States in the penal sum of $5,000 or 10 percent of the value of the claimed property, whichever is lower, but not less than $250, with sureties to be approved by such customs officer, conditioned that in case of condemnation of the articles so claimed the obligor shall pay all the costs and expenses of the proceedings to obtain such condemnation, such customs officer shall transmit such claim and bond, with a duplicate list and description of the articles seized, to the United States attorney for the district in which seizure was made, who shall proceed to a condemnation of the merchandise or other property in the manner prescribed by law.
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Dennis Edward Elias, 921 F.2d 870 (9th Cir. 1990).
· cites it 6× “In this matter, Elias had a remedy at law pursuant to the administrative forfeiture scheme set forth in 19 U.S.C. § 1608 . Hence, Martin-son offers no support for Elias’ argument that the district court had equitable jurisdiction to entertain his motion.”
Vereda, Ltda. v. United States, 271 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
· cites it 3× “19 U.S.C. § 1608 . The seizing agency then turns the matter over to the United States Attorney, who must institute judicial condemnation proceedings in federal district court.”
Gerardo Serrano v. U.S. Customs & Border, 975 F.3d 488 (5th Cir. 2020).
· cites it 2× “Attorney for the institution of judicial proceedings in Federal court to forfeit the seized property in accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 1608 and 19 C.F.R. § 162.47 .”
United States v. United States Currency in the Amount of $2,857.00, 754 F.2d 208 (7th Cir. 1985).
· cites it 5× “The DEA promptly instituted a summary forfeiture proceeding against the currency under 19 U.S.C. § 1608 (1982). 1 In a letter dated December 16, 1982, the DEA formally notified Raymer that it was taking steps to forfeit the currency, and further advised him of the procedures he…”
Jim Floyd v. United States, 860 F.2d 999 (10th Cir. 1988).
· cites it 5× “Adequate Remedies at Law The government asserts that Floyd failed to pursue four available remedies at law, including the filing of (1) a claim and cost bond under 19 U.S.C. § 1608 , (2) a petition for remission or mitigation of the forfeiture pursuant to 19 U.”
Gete v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 121 F.3d 1285 (9th Cir. 1997).
· cites it 4× “We rejected the argument that the district court did not have jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs claims due to his failure to post a bond and obtain judicial forfeiture under 19 U.S.C. § 1608 . Citing Wiren , we held that certain claims could be brought because the plaintiff…”
Katherine Ann Shaw v. United States, 891 F.2d 602 (6th Cir. 1989).
· cites it 4× “See 19 U.S.C. § 1608 and § 1618. Thus, the equitable remedy of Rule 41(e) was not available to Shaw.”
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.