One thing to consider while waiting for the outcome of this action is this: if you sign and return the blocking agreement, return it by cover letter stating that the lock was not signed voluntarily, but due to CBP`s illegal request to sign it as a prerequisite for the return of property, that legally belongs to you. Note, of course, that this is not the case when customs have legitimately seized the goods and decided to mitigate the forfeiture. Upon receipt of the Notice of Seizure, pursuant to the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (“CAFRA”), it chose the option of referring the case to the United States Attorney for judicial resolution and submitted this election at the same time as the required CAFRA form. == The government did not appeal for judicial forfeiture within 90 days of receiving the application form, CAFRA asked the government to “immediately release” the seized property, and prohibited the government from “taking further steps to cause the civil forfeiture of such property.” 18 U.S.C§ 983(a)(3)(B)(ii). In the present case, an appeal was lodged requesting that the case be referred to the Federal Court. As soon as this happens, if CBP does not request judicial forfeiture of currency, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA) requires the government to immediately release the seized property and that the government take no further action to cause the forfeiture of the confiscated property (cf. 18 U.S.C. § 983 (a) (3) (B)(ii)). Instead of simply returning the funds, CBP sent a decision letter saying that you would get your funds back if CBP gets a release agreement signed Hold Harmless that exempts the government from any fault and prevents you from filing a complaint against the government. CBP also asks you to sign and return the agreement within 30 days and, if not, currency forfeiture procedures will be put in place (despite the law that states the government should return your funds immediately).
Although this seizure, because it was a violation of the foreign exchange declaration, was submitted to CAFRA, the same logic would apply to seizures under the Tariff Act of 1930. When an exporter files a U.S.19.C. § 1608 claim and imposes itself in the ensuing federal legal proceedings or the government under 19 U.S.C. § 1604 decides not to pursue the action for forfeiture, nothing in the CBP law allows to make restitution subject to a loss or waiver of rights. The theory behind the costume is simple. Nothing in CAFRA authorizes the release of funds to a flawless blocking agreement. In addition, it runs counter to the specific requirement to “immediately release” the funds if no injunction action has been filed within the time limit prescribed by law. . . .