## Facts

- George E. Allen raised and traded birds as a hobby.
- An importer acting for Allen bought eclectus parrots from a dealer in Singapore and imported them into the United States, but the parrots originated in Indonesia.
- Indonesia had prohibited export of eclectus parrots since 1972, subject to narrow exceptions not applicable.
- The parrots entered the United States without documentation showing lawful export from Indonesia, as required by 19 U.S.C. § 1527(a).
- The importer knew the birds came from Indonesia but did not know Indonesia restricted their export; the importer had asked U.S. customs officials about legality and received no definitive answer.
- The United States brought an in rem forfeiture action under 19 U.S.C. § 1527(b); the district court granted summary judgment for the government and ordered forfeiture, and Allen appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether forfeiture under 19 U.S.C. § 1527(b) requires proof that the owner/importer acted with “culpable disregard” of foreign wildlife law.
2. Whether eclectus parrots are “wild birds” under 19 U.S.C. § 1527 when the claimant asserts the particular birds were raised or kept in captivity.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment and upheld forfeiture under § 1527(b).
- The court held § 1527(b) imposes strict-liability in rem forfeiture once a § 1527(a) importation violation is shown; owner/importer good faith or lack of knowledge is not a defense.
- The court held eclectus parrots are “wild birds” for § 1527 purposes because “wild” turns on the species’ normal existence in the wild, not whether each specimen was captured from the wild.
- The court rejected reliance on a customs publication regulation as a bar to forfeiture, concluding a regulation cannot narrow the statute’s forfeiture mandate.

## Legal Principles

- Under 19 U.S.C. § 1527(a)–(b), a bird imported without satisfactory documentation proving lawful export from the country of origin, where export is forbidden by that country’s law or regulation, is subject to seizure and forfeiture under the customs laws.
- Section 1527(b) authorizes forfeiture without a culpability element; non-culpability and good-faith inquiry do not prevent forfeiture of the imported animals.
- For § 1527, “wild” is determined at the species level (species normally found in the wild), not by the individual animal’s capture or captivity history.
- Administrative publication practices by customs do not condition or limit statutory forfeiture when the statute’s requirements are met.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld forfeiture of eclectus parrots imported without proof of lawful export from Indonesia, ruling that § 1527(b) imposes strict-liability in rem forfeiture and that “wild” refers to a wild species even if the claimant contends the individual birds were kept or bred in captivity.


United States v. Fifty-Three (53) Eclectus Parrots, 685 F.2d 1131 (9th Cir. 1982)