Whenever any person interested in any vessel, vehicle, aircraft, merchandise, or baggage seized under the provisions of this chapter, or who has incurred, or is alleged to have incurred, any fine or penalty thereunder, files with the Secretary of the Treasury if under the customs laws, and with 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, before the sale of such vessel, vehicle, aircraft, merchandise, or baggage a petition for the remission or mitigation of such fine, penalty, or forfeiture, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, or the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, if he finds that such fine, penalty, or forfeiture was incurred without willful negligence or without any intention on the part of the petitioner to defraud the revenue or to violate the law, or finds the existence of such mitigating circumstances as to justify the remission or mitigation of such fine, penalty, or forfeiture, may remit or mitigate the same upon such terms and conditions as he deems reasonable and just, or order discontinuance of any prosecution relating thereto. In order to enable him to ascertain the facts, the Secretary of the Treasury may issue a commission to any customs officer to take testimony upon such petition: Provided, That nothing in this section shall be construed to deprive any person of an award of compensation made before the filing of such petition.
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Von Neumann, 474 U.S. 242 (1986).
· cites it 10× “He may pursue an administrative remedy under 19 U. S. C. § 1618 (1982 ed., Supp. III), [2] which vests in the Secretary of the Treasury the discretionary authority to mitigate or remit the penalty or forfeiture, or he may challenge the seizure in a judicial forfeiture action…”
Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663 (1974).
· cites it 7× “The Court's answer was that § 7302, read in conjunction with 19 U. S. C. § 1618 , manifested a clear intention "to impose a penalty only upon those who [were] significantly involved in a criminal enterprise," 401 U.”
Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993).
· cites it 2× “715 (1971), we reasoned that 19 U. S. C. § 1618 , which provides that the Secretary of the Treasury is to return the property of those who do not intend to violate the law, demonstrated Congress' intent "to impose a penalty only upon those who are significantly involved in a…”
Trayco, Inc. v. The United States, 994 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
· cites it 4× “On 22 July 1988, Trayco filed a petition for mitigation or remission of the penalty pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1618 . 9 On 1 August 1988, Customs denied Trayco’s petition.”
John E. Wiren v. Donald Eide, as Dist. Dir. of the Bureau of Customs, 542 F.2d 757 (9th Cir. 1976).
· cites it 4× “1 Immediately thereafter, Wiren — claiming he had no knowledge of the presence of hashish — petitioned the Secretary of the Treasury under 19 U.S.C. § 1618 for a remission or mitigation of the impending forfeiture of his car.”
Kosak v. United States, 465 U.S. 848 (1984).
· cites it 2× “" Relying on 19 U. S. C. § 1618 , petitioner filed a petition for relief from the forfeiture.”
Gerardo Serrano v. U.S. Customs & Border, 975 F.3d 488 (5th Cir. 2020).
“19 U.S.C. § 1618 . Serrano’s notice of seizure states that if he is dissatisfied with the petition decision or at any point prior to the forfeiture of the property, he may request a referral to the U.”
Jim Floyd v. United States, 860 F.2d 999 (10th Cir. 1988).
· cites it 3× “§ 1608 , (2) a petition for remission or mitigation of the forfeiture pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1618 , (3) a petition in the United States Claims Court under 28 U.”
People v. One 1998 GMC, 2011 IL 110236 (Ill. 2011).
· cites it 2× “See 19 U.S.C. § 1618 (Supp. III 1985). Notably, testimony may be taken at the federal remission hearing.”
United States v. One 1972 Chevrolet Blazer Veh., S/n Cke182f185579, 563 F.2d 1386 (9th Cir. 1977).
· cites it 6× “In particular, the court pointed to 19 U.S.C. § 1618 , which “permits the innocent owner to prove to the Secretary of the Treasury that the ‘forfeiture was incurred without willful negligence or without any intention on the part of the petitioner .”
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.