Karapet Shimshiryan appeals the district court’s order forfeiting his interest in the tractor portion of a tractor-trailer vehicle to the Government. Because we conclude that the forfeiture is not grossly disproportional to Shimshiryan’s crime, we affirm.

Shimshiryan does not contest that the tractor was an instrumentality of his possession and transport of contraband cigarettes and is therefore forfeitable, but argues that forfeiture of the tractor is excessive under the Eighth Amendment. He asserts that his crime is similar to the currency reporting offense committed by the defendant in United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 118 S.Ct. 2028, 141 L.Ed.2d 314 (1998), and that the forfeiture of his tractor is similarly unconstitutional. We review a district court’s determination that a forfeiture is not excessive under the Eighth Amendment de novo. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. at 336-37. To determine if a forfeiture is excessive, we “compare the forfeiture to the gravity of the offense giving rise to the forfeiture.” 18 U.S.C. § 983(g)(2) (2000). If the amount of the forfeiture is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense, it is unconstitutional. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. at 333. The party challenging the forfeiture bears the burden of demonstrating that it is excessive. United States v. Ahmad, 213 F.3d 805, 813 (4th Cir. 2000); 18 U.S.C. § 983(g)(3) (2000).

We have conducted the required de novo review of the evidence before the district court and conclude that the district court correctly found that forfeiture of the tractor was not grossly disproportional to Shimshiryan’s crime. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED