Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. · ¶53

This assertion would have surprised anyone present in 1960 Havana. As explained, the Act defines “confscat[ion]” to include the seizure of “ownership or control of property.” § 6023(4)(A) (emphasis added). When armed agents physically occupied the docks facilities, they seized control of the docks even if “Cuba owned the docks.” Post, at 261 (opinion of Kagan, J.). Before that seizure, the “concessionaire”— Havana Docks—was “in possession of the works.” 1 App. 454; Brief for Respondents 32. After the seizure, the Cuban Government stopped Havana Docks from operating, using, enjoying, possessing, or otherwise “control[ling] the [docks].” Id., at 23. The Cuban Government thereby extinguished Havana Docks' concession and “physically occupied” the docks, as the Commission found. 1 App. 257. Those actions constitute confscation of the docks under Title III.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.