CBP Official Says Bill Would Help Tracking of Synthetic Analogues
The Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act (SITSA) (here) would help CBP track subject narcotics shipped through express consignments, across ports of entry, and through mail facilities, CBP Acting Executive Assistant Commissioner Robert Perez told a House Judiciary Committee panel June 27. The bill, introduced June 8 by Rep. John Katko, R-N.Y., and referred to the Judiciary and Energy and Commerce committees the same day, would add a new scheduling category, “A,” under the Controlled Substances Act for synthetic drugs, and make importation of those narcotics illegal, with a few exceptions. In terms of imports and exports, the bill would generally subject Schedule A substances to the same requirements and scrutiny as Schedule I and II drugs under the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act. Leading House Judiciary Democrats expressed concern about the bill being misguided, arguing that it would give the U.S. attorney general too much authority in determining narcotics to add to Schedule A.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
A provision of the bill would allow the attorney general to approve registration for applicants to import or export Schedule A substances in some cases. For example, the attorney general can consider the applicant’s limitations on access to the substances under competitive conditions for legitimate “medical, scientific, research, and industrial purposes.” Under the bill, for first-time convictions, unapproved importers of Schedule A substances would face up to 20 years in prison or 20 years to life in jail for cases of death or serious bodily injury, while individuals would also face fines of up to $1 million and defendants “other than an individual” would face fines up to $5 million.
The legislation would make illegal the import and export of Schedule A substances and products containing such a substance, unless the substance or product sports a label “identifying a schedule A substance or product containing a schedule A substance by the nomenclature used by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry” (IUPAC), the bill says. Drug Enforcement Administration Diversion Control Division Acting Assistant Administrator Demetra Ashley expects that CBP would be able to immediately identify any Schedule A imports, which would be listed on the bill of lading. CBP is currently undertaking a pilot, testing whether canine teams might be able to safely detect the odor of fentanyl, Perez said.
Subcommittee ranking member Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, said SITSA takes a “one-size-fits-all approach” and would give the attorney general “unfettered authority” to “criminalize or prosecute” any drugs elected for addition to Schedule A, which could be substances that have chemical compositions similar to fentanyl and other controlled substances. Jackson-Lee also expressed concern about the bill’s sentencing language for offenders. But House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said in a statement (here) that the bill would give U.S. law enforcement “nimble tools” to act quickly against synthetic drugs in the U.S. “I would respectfully submit that this bill simply operates within the parameters already set in the federal statute,” Katko said in testimony during the hearing. “And we’re simply taking that statute and allowing the process to be expedited to get these drugs off the street.” He said the bill is “more about process than it is about sentencing,” in response to Jackson-Lee’s concerns.