Opinion ID: 2470159
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Meaning of Contrary to Law

Text: Property is subject to forfeiture under 19 U.S.C. § 1595a(c) only if it is introduced into the United States contrary to law. Davis argues that NSPA violations cannot serve as a predicate offense to effect seizure under § 1595a(c)'s `contrary to law' [requirement] without a customs violation. In effect, she urges us to read the phrase contrary to law as contrary to customs law. It is axiomatic that the plain meaning of a statute controls its interpretation. Lee v. Bankers Trust Co., 166 F.3d 540, 544 (2d Cir.1999). The phrase contrary to law means illegal; unlawful; conflicting with established law. See Black's Law Dictionary 377 (9th ed.2009). Nothing in the text of Section 1595a limits that broad definition, and nowhere does the statute narrowly define the word law. The government argues, with some force, for a literal interpretation of the statute. If Congress had intended to limit the scope of Section 1595a to violations of the customs laws, it could have said so. Since it did not, Section 1595a(c) would appear to require only that the property in question be introduced into the United States illegally, unlawfully, or in a manner conflicting with established law. The rest of the statute provides additional support for this interpretation. For example, Section 1595a(c)(2)(C) permits the forfeiture of merchandise or packaging in which copyright ... violations are involved, see 17 U.S.C. § 506, while Section 1595a(c)(2)(D) permits the forfeiture of trade dress merchandise involved in the violation of a court order [pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125]. That Section 1595a incorporates by reference federal laws that do not directly pertain to customs enforcement counsels against a reading of contrary to law that might preclude its application to those very statutes. Accordingly, there is a strong argument that the phrase contrary to law in Section 1595a(c) means exactly what it says: the government may seize and forfeit merchandise that is introduced into the United States illegally, unlawfully, or in a manner conflicting with established law, regardless of whether the law violated relates to customs enforcement. On the other hand, a statute's context is critical to its interpretation and Section 1595a's reference to the importation of goods is relevant to discerning what Congress intended by the phrase contrary to law. 19 U.S.C. § 1595a(c). In light of this context, it can be argued that some nexus between international commerce the subject of the customs regulations found in Title 19and the law violated is necessary to trigger Section 1595a's remedies. We need not resolve that issue in this case because, even if such a nexus is required, the NSPA provides one. It requires the transport[ation], transmi[ssion], or transfer[] in interstate or foreign commerce of stolen property or the dealing in stolen property that has crossed a State or United States boundary. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314, 2315. Whatever the merit of the government's argument that the violation of any law suffices to meet Section 1595a's requirement that an object's introduction be contrary to law, violation of the NSPA certainly does suffice, and as that is the only law the government has alleged as a basis for its invocation of Section 1595a, that is the only question we need answer here.