Federal Court Says Injunction Request to Force Forfeiture Proceedings on Seized Goods Allowable
An auto parts importer can continue with its effort to force CBP and the Justice Department to begin forfeiture proceedings or release car grills that were seized over trademark concerns and have been held for years, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said in a July 23 decision. The court ruling is part of ongoing legal proceedings in several venues between the importer, LKQ Corporation, and the government over LKQ's claim that the company has been left unable to challenge the seizures because the proceedings haven't started. The U.S. District Court for Delaware ruled against LKQ on some issues earlier this year (see 1902250013).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The company asked the D.C. court to rule on the individual liability of government personnel, whether LKQ's constitutional due process rights were violated and to issue an injunction to start the proceedings. While the court dismissed the other counts, it declined to dismiss the request for "equitable jurisdiction" to force the proceedings. Although CBP has already referred most of the seizures to the DOJ to start forfeiture actions, not all have been, so LKQ's case is not moot, the court said.
The DOJ in the Delaware court argued that the company's due process rights weren't violated because LKQ "has the ability to trigger those proceedings by seeking an order compelling the filing of the forfeiture action or return of the seized property." The DOJ argued against the injunction request in the D.C. Circuit, but "[s]etting aside the government's unexplained change in position, the government fails to recognize the alleged injury and remedy LKQ seeks here," the D.C. court said. "LKQ does not challenge the seizures themselves but instead argues that the government has unlawfully withheld and delayed initiating forfeiture proceedings. By seizing and holding its property in limbo, LKQ contends that the government has deprived it of the opportunity to challenge the seizures in a timely manner. The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged the existence of the equitable remedy LKQ seeks, and it has never suggested that the availability of a future forfeiture proceeding raises a jurisdictional bar to the remedy."