19 U.S.C. § 1614
Release of seized property
If any person claiming an interest in any vessel, vehicle, aircraft, merchandise, or baggage seized under the provisions of this chapter offers to pay the value of such vessel, vehicle, aircraft, merchandise, or baggage, as determined under section 1606 of this title, and it appears that such person has in fact a substantial interest therein, the appropriate customs officer may, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury if under the customs laws, or the Commandant of the Coast Guard or the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, as the case may be, if under the navigation laws, accept such offer and release the vessel, vehicle, aircraft, merchandise, or baggage seized upon the payment of such value thereof, which shall be distributed in the order provided in section 1613 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1960–2020 · leading case: United States v. Von Neumann, 474 U.S. 242 (1986).
United States v. Von Neumann, 474 U.S. 242 (1986). “Two weeks later, on February 3, Von Neumann posted a bond for $24,500, the *246 value of his car, and Customs released the vehicle pursuant to its authority under 19 U. S. C. § 1614 . On February 12, counsel for Von Neumann filed a supplement to the original remission petition.”
United States v. Robert J. L'hoste, R. J. L'Hoste & Co., Inc., Clarence Eugene Rogers & Marvin Cochran, in Re United States of Am., 609 F.2d 796 (5th Cir. 1980). “Insight into the scope of this discretion is provided by subsection (c), which incorporates the relevant provisions of the customs laws dealing with forfeitures and the disposition of forfeited property. The customs laws allow the redemption of property subject to forfeiture,…”
In Re Newport Sav. & Loan Ass'n, United States of Am. v. Real Prop. Located at 185 Hargraves Drive, Etc., 928 F.2d 472 (1st Cir. 1991). “See 19 U.S.C. § 1614 . a. Newport’s argument.”
Schrob v. Catterson, 948 F.2d 1402 (3rd Cir. 1991). “See 19 U.S.C.A. § 1614 ; id. § 1618. Cat-terson’s actions in negotiating for a personal release in this case are unrelated to a statutory petition for remission or mitigation of a seizure.”
Yancheng Baolong Biochemical Prods. Co. v. United States, 277 F. Supp. 2d 1349 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “a protest under 19 U.S.C. § 1614 . (Def.’s *1364 Br. at 18-19.”
Lee v. Thornton, 538 F.2d 27 (2d Cir. 1976). “Rich filed a petition at that time and was told by Customs Inspector Clark that a cash deposit of $50 “toward the ultimate mitigated penalty” would secure the release of the automobile under 19 U.S.C. § 1614 . 1 Rich Although the record is not free from doubt, this determination…”
Lee v. Thornton, 370 F. Supp. 312 (D. Vt. 1974). “Rich filed a petition at that time and was told by Customs Inspector Clark that a cash deposit of $50 “toward the ultimate mitigated penalty” would secure the release of the automobile under 19 U.S.C. § 1614 . 1 Rich paid the deposit and the automobile was released.”
Krimstock v. Kelly, 306 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2002). “610 , and that, in the case of Von Neumann, Customs released the claimant’s vehicle after he had posted a bond pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1614 , id. at 246 , 106 S.Ct.”
United States v. UPS Customhouse Brokerage, Inc., 686 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010). “19 U.S.C. § 1614 (d)(2)(A) (emphasis added).”
United States v. Joseph Health & Beauty Supply, 807 F. Supp. 323 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). “19 U.S.C. § 1614 (authority for government to accept bond in lieu of seized property under customs provisions that are incorporated by reference into 18 U.”
Von Neumann v. United States, 660 F.2d 1319 (9th Cir. 1981). “” 19 U.S.C. § 1614 . In this case Customs required a bond for what it considered the value of the car, as security to cover the penalty assessed.”
Stephen Nichols v. Wayne Cnty., Mich. (6th Cir. 2020). “Under 19 U.S.C. § 1614 , “the appropriate customs officer may” release a seized vehicle to “any person claiming an interest in” and willing to “pay the value of such” vehicle, “subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury.”
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.