United States v. ONE 1970 FORD PICK-UP TRUCK, ETC., Civ. A. No. C81-1665.

• Decision Date: 15 December 1981
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. C81-1665.
• Citation: 537 F. Supp. 368
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. ONE 1970 FORD PICK-UP TRUCK, SERIAL NO. F10GCH17034, Defendant, Thomas Cowoski, Party In Interest.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

537 F. Supp. 368

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. ONE 1970 FORD PICK-UP TRUCK, SERIAL NO. F10GCH17034, Defendant Thomas Cowoski, Party In Interest.

Civ. A. No. C81-1665.

United States District Court, N. D. Ohio, E. D.

December 15, 1981.

Dale F. Kainski, Asst. U. S. Atty., Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Paul Mancino, Jr., Cleveland, Ohio, for party in interest.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

CONTIE, District Judge.

The United States initiated this action for the forfeiture of a vehicle pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1595a.

At trial on the matter, the claimant introduced no testimony and objected to none of the government's testimony. The government introduced testimony to the following effect: The claimant had pled guilty to violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659, possession of property stolen from a foreign shipment of freight. The stolen property consisted of 2258 pounds of tungsten valued at $8000, which was being shipped from a mining company in Canada to General Electric Company in Euclid, Ohio. The tunten was stolen by someone breaking into sealed boxes in a bonded and sealed railroad car in the Cleveland yard of the Norfolk and Western Railroad. The pilfered tungsten was transported in the defendant pick-up truck to a scrap yard, where the claimant attempted to sell it and where he was arrested.

In an action for the forfeiture of a vehicle seized under 19 U.S.C. § 1595a, the claimant has the burden of proof, provided that the government first show probable cause for the initiation of such an action. 19 U.S.C. § 1615. General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. United States, 63 F.2d 209 (6th Cir. 1933).

Although he does not dispute the government's evidence, the claimant contends that the forfeiture statute is inapplicable. Title 19 U.S.C. § 1595a reads in pertinent part:

(a) ... every ... vehicle ... used in, to aid in, or to facilitate ... the importation, bringing in, unlading, landing, removal, concealing, harboring, or subsequent transportation of any article which is being or has been introduced, or attempted to be introduced, into the United States contrary to law ... shall be seized and forfeited....

The claimant pled guilty to possession of property stolen from foreign commerce. He argues that possession does not imply importation. The statute, however, permits forfeiture of a vehicle used in the harboring and in the subsequent transportation of unlawfully imported goods. For the statute to apply, the vehicle did not have to be used in the actual act of unlawful introduction.

The forfeiture statute allows for seizure of a vehicle transporting "any article which is being or has been introduced, or attempted to be introduced, into the United States contrary to law." Regarding this clause, claimant argues, first, that a plea of guilty to possession of property stolen from foreign commerce does not necessarily imply that the property was illegally imported. In this he is correct. The government therefore had the burden of showing that there existed probable cause to believe the goods were introduced into the United States contrary to law. This the government did, with evidence that the tungsten had been shipped from Canada in sealed and bonded containers, that the containers were broken into, that the tungsten recovered from the defendant truck was chemically identical to that in the railroad shipment, and that at the time of the break-in the shipment had not yet been inspected by United States Customs as required by law.

Cl...