Opinion ID: 160990
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether equitable tolling is available in forfeiture actions.

Text: 5 The question of whether equitable tolling is legally permissible under 19 U.S.C. 1621 2 is one of law that we review de novo. See Dang v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 175 F.3d 1186, 1189 (10th Cir. 1999). Mr. Clymore first argues that applying the doctrine of equitable tolling to allow the government to attempt a second bite of the apple after it failed to serve constitutionally adequate notice within the statutory time period is per se manifestly unjust. We disagree. It is appropriate to apply equitable tolling to any statute of limitations where consistent with congressional intent, and called for by the facts of the case. Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 479 (1986). 6 Mr. Clymore next argues that, because 1621 expressly provides for tolling during the absence or concealment of the property or person, see 1621(2), it is contrary to Congress's intent to judicially approve of other circumstances in which tolling may be appropriate. Again, we disagree. The statute does not state that it is inappropriate to toll the period in any other circumstance. We therefore conclude that equitable tolling is not inconsistent with congressional intent 3 . Cf. Bowen, 476 U.S. at 480 (finding equitable tolling appropriate when statute provided for tolling in some circumstances and the tolling at issue was nowhere eschewed by Congress) (quotation omitted). 7