19 U.S.C. § 1703

Seizure and forfeiture of vessels

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

(a) Vessels subject to seizure and forfeiture

Whenever any vessel which shall have been built, purchased, fitted out in whole or in part, or held, in the United States or elsewhere, for the purpose of being employed to defraud the revenue or to smuggle any merchandise into the United States, or to smuggle any merchandise into the territory of any foreign government in violation of the laws there in force, if under the laws of such foreign government any penalty or forfeiture is provided for violation of the laws of the United States respecting the customs revenue, or whenever any vessel which shall be found, or discovered to have been employed, or attempted to be employed, within the United States for any such purpose, or in anywise in assistance thereof, or whenever any vessel of the United States which shall be found, or discovered to have been, employed, or attempted to be employed at any place, for any such purpose, or is anywise in assistance thereof, if not subsequently forfeited to the United States or to a foreign government, is found at any place at which any such vessel may be examined by an officer of the customs in the enforcement of any law respecting the revenue, the said vessel and its cargo shall be seized and forfeited.

(b) “Vessels of the United States” defined

Every vessel which is documented, owned, or controlled in the United States, and every vessel of foreign registry which is, directly or indirectly, substantially owned or controlled by any citizen of, or corporation incorporated, owned, or controlled in, the United States, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed a vessel of the United States.

For the purposes of this section, the fact that a vessel has become subject to pursuit as provided in section 1581 of this title, or is a hovering vessel, or that a vessel fails, at any place within the customs waters of the United States or within a customs-enforcement area, to display lights as required by law, shall be prima facie evidence that such vessel is being, or has been, or is attempted to be employed to defraud the revenue of the United States.

(Aug. 5, 1935, ch. 438, title I, § 3, 49 Stat. 518.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1936–2022 · leading case: United States v. One (1) 1983 Homemade Vessel Named Barracuda, 625 F. Supp. 893 (S.D. Fla. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. One (1) 1983 Homemade Vessel Named Barracuda, 625 F. Supp. 893 (S.D. Fla. 1986). · cites it 9× “§ 881 , and 19 U.S.C. § 1703 . This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.”

United States v. Jerald Wayne Dickerson, Claimant-Appellant v. One Cessna 421 B, Aircraft, 873 F.2d 1181 (9th Cir. 1989). · cites it 4× “19 U.S.C. § 1703 ; 21 U.S.C. § 881 (a)(4).”

United States v. One (1) 1966 Beechcraft Baron, No. N242bs, 788 F.2d 384 (6th Cir. 1986). · cites it 4× “) and Albert Gillette Rogers (Rogers), the owners of a 1966 Beechcraft Baron, appealed from an order directing forfeiture of the defendant aircraft to the United States pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1703 . At approximately 8:00 p.”

United States v. One 1977 36 Foot Cigarette Ocean Racer, Florida Reg. FL9350CT, 624 F. Supp. 290 (S.D. Fla. 1985). · cites it 2× “Although the “stripped” cabin is not technically a false compartment under the meaning of 19 U.S.C. § 1703 , Agent Arnold testified that drug smugglers frequently remove everything in the cabin because the smooth surface makes it easier to clean out the marijuana.”

United States v. One (1) Def. Lobster Vessel Named Betty II, 606 F. Supp. 32 (S.D. Fla. 1984). · cites it 2× “The Court concludes that claimant corporation constructed this vessel to *37 smuggle merchandise into the United States in violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1703 , as evidenced by the presence of a false or secret compartment.”

United States v. Keller, 451 F. Supp. 631 (D.P.R. 1978). “), (6) It is a “vessel of the United States” ( 19 U.S.C. § 1703 (b) and a “hovering vessel” ( 19 U.”

United States v. Santana-Rosa, 132 F.3d 860 (1st Cir. 1998). “The vessel, approximately thirty feet long and with two engines, was moving toward Fajar-do at a high rate of speed with its navigational lights out in violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1703 . When first located, it was approximately five miles from the nearest land point on United…”

United States v. One Parcel of Prop. Located at Rt. 1, 743 F. Supp. 802 (M.D. Ala. 1990). “1988), does not control the outcome of this case because it, like One 1982 28' International Vessel , involved a forfeiture action under a statute, 19 U.S.C.A. § 1703 (a), that lacked a statutory innocent owner exception.”

United States v. 526 Liscum Drive, 866 F.2d 213 (6th Cir. 1989). “§ 881 (d), the United States must establish probable cause to believe that a substantial connection exists between the property to be forfeited and the illegal exchange of a controlled substance.”

State of Alaska v. Kenneth John Jouppi, 519 P.3d 653 (Alaska Ct. App. 2022). “518 , August 5, 1935, now codified as 19 U.S.C. § 1703 — which authorized the forfeiture of “any vessel .”

United States v. One (1) 1984 No. 1 Boat Mfg. Lobster Vess., 617 F. Supp. 672 (S.D. Fla. 1985). “The Court further concludes that claimant not only did not do all that he could reasonably be expected to do to prevent the illegal use of his vessel, he actually constructed this vessel to smuggle merchandise into the United States in violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1703 , as…”

United States v. Dickerson, 857 F.2d 1241 (9th Cir. 1988). “We also do not find that Dickerson’s plane was subject to forfeiture under 19 U.S.C. § 1703 . This statute cannot apply to this case.”

Show all 14 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.