19 U.S.C. § 1610
Seizure; judicial forfeiture proceedings
If any vessel, vehicle, aircraft, merchandise, or baggage is not subject to section 1607 of this title, the appropriate customs officer shall transmit a report of the case, with the names of available witnesses, to the United States attorney for the district in which the seizure was made for the institution of the proper proceedings for the condemnation of such property.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40
cases, 1938–2015 · leading case: Vereda, Ltda. v. United States, 271 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Vereda, Ltda. v. United States, 271 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “19 U.S.C. § 1610 . 4 . On April 11, 2000, Congress passed the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 ("CAF-RA”), Pub.”
Malladi Drugs & Pharm., Ltd. v. Tandy, 552 F.3d 885 (D.C. Cir. 2009). “Under the customs laws, the DEA may forfeit seized goods valued at more than $500,000 only upon a judicial decree after judicial forfeiture proceedings, 19 U.S.C. § 1610 , but may administratively forfeit goods valued at or less than $500,000, id.”
Langbord v. United States Dep't of the Treasury, 783 F.3d 441 (3d Cir. 2015). “19 U.S.C. § 1610 . Thus, rather than sending notice to interested parties as for an administrative forfeiture, seized property not subject to § 1607 is referred to the U.”
United States v. Eight (8) Rhodesian Stone Statues, 449 F. Supp. 193 (C.D. Cal. 1978). “19 U.S.C. § 1610 . See Wiren v. Eide, 542 F.”
United States v. $38,000.00 in United States Currency, David English & Michael William English, Claimants-Appellants, 816 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1987). “§ 1608 ; see 19 U.S.C. § 1610 . Therefore, apparently by default, judicial forfeitures are governed by the Supplemental Rules.”
United States v. Reginald McGlory, 202 F.3d 664 (3d Cir. 2000). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1610 . If a claimant fails to file the bond to contest the forfeiture, the seizing agency will make a declaration of forfeiture and title will vest in the United States.”
John E. Wiren v. Donald Eide, as Dist. Dir. of the Bureau of Customs, 542 F.2d 757 (9th Cir. 1976). “Under 19 U.S.C. § 1610 , the forfeiture of property so valued is permitted solely by means of judicial condemnation.”
United States v. $37,780 in United States Currency, Victorino Hernandez, 920 F.2d 159 (2d Cir. 1990). “§ 881 and 19 U.S.C. § 1610 for forfeiture of the currency.”
United States v. Prop. Identified as $88,260.00 in United States Currency, 925 F. Supp. 838 (D.D.C. 1996). “Subject Matter Jurisdiction Claimant argues that 19 U.S.C. § 1610 governs this case and therefore, this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the government’s verified complaint.”
United States v. a Quantity of Gold Jewelry, 379 F. Supp. 283 (C.D. Cal. 1974). “It is, therefore, in connection with the relief sought therein that Naywert brings the motion presently under consideration.”
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. § 1610 provides: “If the value of any vessel, vehicle, merchandise, or baggage so seized is greater than $2,500, the appropriate customs officer shall transmit a report of the case, with the names of available witnesses, to the United States attorney for the…”
United States v. One 1976 Lincoln Mark IV, Serial 6Y89A876578 Michigan License TWP 951, 462 F. Supp. 1383 (W.D. Pa. 1979). “§§ 1345 and 1355 and 19 U.S.C. § 1610 . The Government has no evidence which would implicate Kallaway in any way in the events surrounding the arrests of Pesci and Benevides on September 20,1977.”
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.