19 U.S.C. § 1621

Limitation of actions

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

No suit or action to recover any duty under section 1592(d), 1593a(d) of this title, or any pecuniary penalty or forfeiture of property accruing under the customs laws shall be instituted unless such suit or action is commenced within five years after the time when the alleged offense was discovered, or in the case of forfeiture, within 2 years after the time when the involvement of the property in the alleged offense was discovered, whichever was later; except that—(1) in the case of an alleged violation of section 1592 or 1593a of this title, no suit or action (including a suit or action for restoration of lawful duties under subsection (d) of such sections) may be instituted unless commenced within 5 years after the date of the alleged violation or, if such violation arises out of fraud, within 5 years after the date of discovery of fraud, and(2) the time of the absence from the United States of the person subject to the penalty or forfeiture, or of any concealment or absence of the property, shall not be reckoned within the 5-year period of limitation.(June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title IV, § 621, 46 Stat. 758; Aug. 5, 1935, ch. 438, title III, § 306, 49 Stat. 527; Pub. L. 95–410, title I, § 110(e), Oct. 3, 1978, 92 Stat. 897; Pub. L. 103–182, title VI, § 668, Dec. 8, 1993, 107 Stat. 2216; Pub. L. 106–185, § 11, Apr. 25, 2000, 114 Stat. 217.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in act Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 356, title IV, § 621, 42 Stat. 988. That section was superseded by section 621 of act June 17, 1930, comprising this section, and repealed by section 651(a)(1) of the 1930 act.

Provisions substantially similar to those in this section, except that the period of limitation was three years, were contained in act June 22, 1874, ch. 391, § 22, 18 Stat. 190, prior to repeal by act Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 356, title IV, § 643, 42 Stat. 989.

Amendments

2000—Pub. L. 106–185 inserted “, or in the case of forfeiture, within 2 years after the time when the involvement of the property in the alleged offense was discovered, whichever was later” after “within five years after the time when the alleged offense was discovered” in introductory provisions.

1993—Pub. L. 103–182 inserted “any duty under section 1592(d), 1593a(d) of this title, or” before “any pecuniary penalty” and substituted “discovered; except that—” along with pars. (1) and (2) for “discovered: Provided, That in the case of an alleged violation of section 1592 of this title arising out of gross negligence or negligence, such suit or action shall not be instituted more than five years after the date the alleged violation was committed: Provided further, That the time of the absence from the United States of the person subject to such penalty or forfeiture, or of any concealment or absence of the property, shall not be reckoned within this period of limitation.”

1978—Pub. L. 95–410 prescribed for any suit or action for violation of section 1592 of this title arising out of gross negligence or negligence a five year limitation period following date of alleged violation.

1935—Act Aug. 5, 1935, substituted “the alleged offense was discovered” for “such penalty or forfeiture accrued”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2000 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 106–185 applicable to any forfeiture proceeding commenced on or after the date that is 120 days after Apr. 25, 2000, see section 21 of Pub. L. 106–185, set out as a note under section 1324 of Title 8, Aliens and Nationality.

Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Effective date of amendment by Pub. L. 95–410 for alleged violation of section 1592 of this title arising out of gross negligence or negligence committed on or after Oct. 3, 1978, or before such date without commencement of proceedings except where barred by provisions of this section in effect prior to such date, see section 110(f)(2) of Pub. L. 95–410, set out as a note under section 1592 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 208 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1943–2026 · leading case: William Longenette v. Peter Krusing William E. Perry, Special Agent Fbi Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 322 F.3d 758 (3rd Cir. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

William Longenette v. Peter Krusing William E. Perry, Special Agent Fbi Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 322 F.3d 758 (3rd Cir. 2003). · cites it 6× “11 Nevertheless, at issue is whether the statute of limitations in 19 U.S.C. § 1621 bars the United States Attorney from instituting judicial forfeiture proceedings.”

United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43 (1993). · cites it 4× “The Court of Appeals ruled that the 5-year statute of limitations in 19 U. S. C. § 1621 is only an "outer limit" for filing a forfeiture action, and that further limits are imposed by 19 U.”

United States v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred & Fifty Dollars, 461 U.S. 555 (1983). · cites it 4× “19 U. S. C. § 1621 (1976 ed., Supp. V). We reject the Government's suggestion that Lovasco provides the appropriate test for determining whether the delay violates the due process command.”

Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co., 537 U.S. 149 (2003). · cites it 2× “§ 881 (a)(7); 19 U. S. C. § 1621 . We held that that power was not revoked by the Government's failure to comply with some of the separate "internal timing requirements" set forth in §§ 1602-1604.”

United States v. Islip, 18 F. Supp. 2d 1047 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998). · cites it 7× “Since, under 19 U.S.C. § 1621 , the limitations period for grossly negligent and negligent violations of 19 U.”

United States v. Marolf, 173 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 1999). · cites it 4× “See 19 U.S.C. § 1621 . 1 The district court properly considered the application of laches to Marolfs action, and did not abuse its discretion in concluding that laches was inapplicable in this case.”

United States of Am., Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Larry Dean Dusenbery, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee, 201 F.3d 763 (6th Cir. 2000). · cites it 6× “See 19 U.S.C.A. § 1621 (West 1999). After considering the merits of the forfeiture, the district court found that the Government established probable cause that the property constituted proceeds, or was purchased with proceeds from illegal drug sales.”

Rotkiske v. Klemm, 140 S. Ct. 355 (2019). “) ; 19 U.S.C. § 1621 (1976 ed.) ; 26 U.S.C. § 7217 (c) (1976 ed.”

United States v. 5443 Suffield Terrace, Skokie, Ill., 607 F.3d 504 (7th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “19 U.S.C. § 1621 . The government first discovered that Connors was using his house as part of his smuggling operation in March 1997 but did not file this civil forfeiture action until March 2002, so it cannot rely on the two-year limitation.”

United States v. All Funds in Account Nos. 747.034/278, 747.009/278, & 747.714/278 Banco Espanol De Credito, 295 F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir. 2002). · cites it 3× “See 19 U.S.C. § 1621 . Vasquez is the wife of Juan Ramon Mat-ta, the leader and organizer of a crime ring that smuggled massive quantities of cocaine into the United States in the 1980s.”

United States v. Twenty-Seven Parcels of Real Prop. Located in Sikeston, Scott Cnty., Missouri, Louis Jimerson, 236 F.3d 438 (8th Cir. 2001). · cites it 7× “We hold that the relevant statute of limitations, 19 U.S.C. § 1621 , began to run when Jimer-son’s drug offense was discovered, not at the later time when the alleged connection of the property in question to the offense was discovered.”

Langbord v. United States Dep't of the Treasury, 832 F.3d 170 (3rd Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “Almost eight years after the seizure, the claimant filed an action to recover the seized funds raising an issue under 28 U.”

Show all 208 citing cases →

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.