CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT | 2026-10-12

When CBP Seizes Your Goods: Forfeiture, the Petition for Remission, and How California Importers Get Merchandise Back Under 19 U.S.C. § 1618

A seizure notice from Customs does not mean the merchandise is gone. Federal law gives an importer several distinct paths to respond — a petition for remission, an offer in compromise, an administrative claim that forces the government to court, or abandonment — and each carries its own deadlines and consequences. Choosing the wrong path, or missing the deadline, is how importers permanently lose goods they could have recovered.

When U.S. Customs and Border Protection seizes a shipment at the Port of Los Angeles, Long Beach, or Oakland, the importer receives a Notice of Seizure that reads like a final judgment — but it is not. Seizure is the beginning of an administrative forfeiture process, and federal law gives the import

A container arrives, a hold is placed, and days later the importer receives a CBP Form or letter titled Notice of Seizure and Information to Claimants. The notice identifies the seized merchandise, cites the statute CBP believes was violated, and states the government’s intention to forfeit the goods. For a California business whose capital is tied up in that container, the notice can be alarming — but it is the opening move in a defined legal process, not the end of one. What the importer does in the next few weeks determines whether the goods come back. This article explains how seizure and administrative forfeiture work, what each response option means, and why the petition for remission is so often the right tool.

Why CBP Seizes Merchandise in the First Place

Customs derives its seizure authority principally from 19 U.S.C. § 1595a, which makes merchandise introduced or attempted to be introduced into the United States contrary to law subject to seizure and forfeiture, and from a web of related statutes that attach forfeiture to specific violations. Common grounds for a seizure at a California port include intellectual-property violations (counterfeit trademarks and pirated goods), country-of-origin marking violations under 19 U.S.C. § 1304, misdeclaration of value or classification, prohibited or restricted merchandise (goods that violate another agency’s rules — FDA, EPA, CPSC, USDA), narcotics or controlled-substance paraphernalia, undeclared currency over the reporting threshold, and merchandise suspected of being produced with forced labor. A seizure can also follow an attempted export that violates licensing rules. The common thread is that the government contends the goods were imported or exported “contrary to law,” which triggers the forfeiture machinery regardless of whether the importer intended any violation. Importantly, forfeiture is an action against the property itself — an in rem proceeding — so the government’s theory is that the merchandise is tainted, not that the importer is being punished in the criminal sense, although civil penalties frequently travel alongside the seizure.

The Notice of Seizure and the Clock It Starts

Once CBP seizes merchandise, it must send the importer and other interested parties written notice of the seizure and of the right to contest it. Under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA), codified in relevant part at 18 U.S.C. § 983, the government generally must send notice of a non-judicial (administrative) forfeiture to interested parties within 60 days of the seizure (with specified extensions). The notice tells the recipient what was seized, the legal basis, the appraised domestic value, and — critically — the options for responding and the deadlines for each. Because several of those deadlines run from the date of the notice, calendaring them correctly on the day the notice arrives is the single most important early step. Perishable, seasonal, or just-in-time inventory raises the stakes further: a holiday shipment seized in October is worthless if it is not released until February, so the timeline is not merely procedural but commercial.

Path One: The Petition for Remission or Mitigation Under 19 U.S.C. § 1618

The workhorse remedy is the petition for remission or mitigation authorized by 19 U.S.C. § 1618. This statute empowers the Secretary (through CBP’s Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures (FP&F) offices) to remit or mitigate a forfeiture or penalty if the petitioner shows that the 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 that other mitigating circumstances justify relief. In plain terms, the petition asks CBP to exercise its discretion to give the goods back — or to reduce the amount demanded — because full forfeiture is too harsh given the facts. The petition is filed with the FP&F office that issued the notice, and CBP’s mitigation guidelines (published in the agency’s guidelines and reflected in 19 C.F.R. Part 171, the regulations that govern petitions) structure how officers evaluate the equities, including the importer’s compliance history, the presence or absence of culpability, the seriousness of the violation, and remedial steps taken. A well-built petition marshals the documentary record — commercial invoices, the entry, correspondence, proof of licensing or corrected marking — and frames the violation as an innocent or at most negligent error rather than an intentional one. Filing a petition does not require posting a bond and keeps the matter in the administrative channel, which is usually faster and cheaper than litigation. The trade-off is that the petition asks CBP to exercise discretion rather than adjudicate a legal right, so the quality of the submission matters enormously.

Path Two: The Administrative Claim That Forces Judicial Forfeiture

An importer who believes the seizure is legally wrong — not merely harsh — can refuse the administrative route and demand that the government take the case to court. Under CAFRA, the claimant files a claim (historically accompanied, in the customs context, by a cost bond) stating an interest in the property and demanding judicial forfeiture proceedings. This referral obligates the government to file a civil forfeiture complaint in federal district court within a statutory window or release the property; under 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3), once a proper claim is filed, the government generally has 90 days to file a complaint or return the goods. The advantage of this path is a neutral judge, the rules of evidence, discovery, and — under CAFRA — a burden of proof placed on the government to establish forfeitability by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than the importer having to persuade the very agency that seized the goods. CAFRA also created an innocent-owner defense (18 U.S.C. § 983(d)) and a proportionality check echoing the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause, which the Supreme Court applied to forfeitures in United States v. Bajakajian (1998) 524 U.S. 321. The disadvantages are cost, delay, and the fact that the government, not the importer, controls the pace of filing. For a strong legal challenge — say, a seizure that misreads the tariff or the marking rules — the judicial path can be decisive; for a sympathetic but legally weak case, the petition is usually better.

Path Three: Offer in Compromise

Separately, 19 U.S.C. § 1617 authorizes CBP to compromise a claim. An importer may submit an offer in compromise, tendering a sum of money to resolve the seizure and any associated penalty. This is a negotiated settlement rather than a request for discretionary grace, and it can be appropriate where liability is clear but the importer wants certainty and a defined cost rather than the uncertainty of a petition decision. An offer in compromise typically must be accompanied by the proposed payment and is evaluated by CBP counsel and FP&F; acceptance resolves the matter on the agreed terms. Offers are often used in combination with, or as a fallback from, a petition — for instance, where a first petition yields a mitigation figure the importer wants to negotiate further.

Path Four: Abandonment — and Why It Is Rarely the Answer

Finally, an importer can do nothing, or can formally abandon the merchandise. If no petition, claim, or offer is filed within the deadlines, CBP proceeds to administrative forfeiture under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1607–1609 for property that qualifies (merchandise whose appraised value does not exceed the statutory threshold, and certain other categories), publishing or sending notice and then declaring the goods forfeited by operation of law. Abandonment forfeits both the goods and the capital in them, and — importantly — it does not necessarily extinguish a separate monetary penalty CBP may assess for the underlying violation. Abandonment occasionally makes sense for low-value or genuinely prohibited merchandise that cannot lawfully be released, but it should be a deliberate choice, not the accidental result of a missed deadline.

The Relationship Between Seizure and Penalties

A seizure is frequently only half of CBP’s response. The same conduct that justified seizing the goods — a misdeclaration, a marking violation, a negligent entry — can also support a monetary penalty under statutes such as 19 U.S.C. § 1592 (fraud, gross negligence, or negligence in entry) or the marking-duty provisions of § 1304. That means an importer may face both the loss of the merchandise and a demand for money, and the two tracks can proceed in parallel with their own notices and deadlines. A § 1618 petition can address both the forfeiture and the related penalty, which is one reason the petition is often the most efficient vehicle: a single, well-documented submission can seek the return of the goods and the reduction or cancellation of the penalty on a unified set of facts. Coordinating the seizure response with any § 1592 exposure — and avoiding admissions in one track that damage the other — is a core part of handling these matters well.

Building a Persuasive Petition

Because the petition asks CBP to exercise discretion, its persuasiveness turns on facts and framing. The strongest petitions do several things at once. They establish the absence of culpability — showing that any error was innocent or, at worst, simple negligence rather than willful conduct — because § 1618 relief is keyed to the petitioner’s state of mind and good faith. They document a clean or strong compliance history, since CBP’s mitigation guidelines treat a first-time, good-faith importer very differently from a repeat violator. They demonstrate remediation — corrected marking, a revised classification, strengthened internal controls, or a prior-disclosure posture — to show the violation will not recur. They quantify the hardship and the proportionality concern, especially where the value of the goods dwarfs any revenue loss, invoking the spirit of Bajakajian. And they present the complete documentary record so the officer can grant relief without having to assume facts. A petition that simply asserts innocence without proof invites denial; a petition that proves its narrative gives the FP&F officer a defensible basis to return the goods.

Deadlines, Supplemental Petitions, and Appeals

If CBP denies a petition or grants less relief than requested, the process is not necessarily over. CBP’s regulations provide for supplemental petitions — a request for reconsideration at a higher level within the agency — which allow the importer to address the stated reasons for denial with additional evidence or argument. The deadlines for supplemental petitions, like the original ones, are strict and run from the date of the decision. Throughout, the importer must keep the broader clock in mind: electing the petition route generally pauses the forfeiture while CBP decides, but an importer who wants the option of judicial review must be careful not to let the deadline to file a claim lapse while a petition is pending, because the two paths have different timelines and consequences. This interplay of deadlines is precisely where importers get into trouble without careful docketing and is a central reason to involve counsel immediately upon receiving a notice.

What California Importers Should Do the Day a Notice Arrives

The practical playbook is straightforward. First, read the notice carefully and calendar every deadline it states, counting from the date of the notice. Second, identify the appraised value and the cited statute, because those determine which paths are available and which strategy fits. Third, preserve the goods’ commercial value — if the cargo is perishable or seasonal, speed is paramount, and in some circumstances CBP can permit release under bond or expedited handling while the matter is resolved. Fourth, gather the entry documents, invoices, and any evidence of good faith, licensing, or corrected compliance. Fifth, decide — ideally with counsel — among petition, claim, offer, or abandonment, understanding that the choice can often be sequenced (petition first, claim preserved as a fallback) if the deadlines are managed. Acting in the first days, rather than waiting, preserves options that silence forecloses.

How Trembach Law Firm Helps

Our firm represents importers, consignees, and brokers across California’s ports in the full range of seizure responses. We prepare and file petitions for remission under 19 U.S.C. § 1618 that document the absence of culpability and marshal the equities, we file administrative claims that force the government to prove forfeitability in federal court when the seizure is legally wrong, we negotiate offers in compromise under § 1617, and we defend the § 1592 penalties that often accompany a seizure. Because the deadlines run quickly and the commercial stakes are immediate, we move fast to protect time-sensitive cargo and to preserve every response option before it lapses.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does a Notice of Seizure mean CBP will keep my goods?

No. A seizure notice begins an administrative forfeiture process and tells you how to contest it. You generally have the right to file a petition for remission, file a claim demanding judicial forfeiture, make an offer in compromise, or abandon the goods. The merchandise is not forfeited unless you let the deadlines pass or lose on the merits.

What is a petition for remission under 19 U.S.C. § 1618?

It is a request that CBP return the seized merchandise, or reduce an associated penalty, on the ground that the violation occurred without willful negligence or intent to defraud, or that other circumstances justify relief. It is filed with the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures office that issued the notice and is governed by the procedures in 19 C.F.R. Part 171.

How long do I have to respond to a seizure notice?

The notice states the deadlines, and several run from the date of the notice — often measured in weeks, not months. Under CAFRA (18 U.S.C. § 983), the government generally must send notice within 60 days of seizure, and once you file a proper claim demanding judicial forfeiture, the government generally has 90 days to file a complaint in court or release the property. Calendar every deadline the day the notice arrives.

Should I file a petition or demand that the case go to court?

It depends on your goal. A petition asks CBP to exercise discretion and is faster, cheaper, and does not require a bond — best when the facts are sympathetic. A claim forces the government to prove forfeitability by a preponderance of the evidence before a neutral judge, with discovery and the innocent-owner defense under 18 U.S.C. § 983(d) — best when the seizure is legally wrong. The two paths have different deadlines, so the choice should be made deliberately.

Can the forfeiture be unconstitutional if it is too harsh?

Potentially. In United States v. Bajakajian (1998) 524 U.S. 321, the Supreme Court held that a forfeiture can violate the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause if it is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense. CAFRA also builds a proportionality check into judicial forfeiture. Proportionality is a powerful argument where the value of the goods vastly exceeds any revenue loss.

Will I also face a monetary penalty?

Often, yes. The same conduct that justified the seizure can support a penalty under 19 U.S.C. § 1592 or the marking provisions of § 1304. A single § 1618 petition can address both the forfeiture and the related penalty on a unified set of facts, which is one reason the petition is frequently the most efficient response.

What happens if I do nothing?

CBP proceeds to administrative forfeiture under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1607–1609 for qualifying property, and the goods are declared forfeited by operation of law. You lose both the merchandise and the capital in it, and doing nothing does not necessarily cancel a separate monetary penalty. Silence is a choice that forecloses your options.

My perishable shipment was seized. Can anything be done quickly?

Yes. Time-sensitive and perishable cargo demands immediate action, and in some circumstances CBP can permit expedited handling or release under bond while the matter is resolved. The faster a complete, well-documented response is filed, the better the chance of preserving the commercial value of the goods. Call Trembach Law Firm at (213) 645-2246 the day you receive a notice.

Talk to a California Customs Lawyer About a Seizure

A CBP seizure is a deadline-driven problem with real money on the line, but it is a problem with defined solutions — a petition for remission under 19 U.S.C. § 1618, a claim that forces judicial forfeiture, an offer in compromise, or a deliberate abandonment. Trembach Law Firm, led by Anatolii Trembach (LL.M. in international trade and customs law; admitted in California), helps importers across the Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland ports recover seized merchandise and defend the penalties that come with it. Call (213) 645-2246 for a confidential consultation.

Contact Trembach Law Firm at (818) 514-7680 for a confidential consultation.

Trembach Law Firm | 27001 Agoura Road, Suite 350, Calabasas, CA 91301