US Gets More Time to File Response at CAFC Over Goods Seized as 'Drug Paraphernalia'
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 9 order gave the U.S. more time to file its reply brief in a case involving imports seized as "drug paraphernalia." The government now has until Feb. 10 to submit its response. Root Sciences filed the case after CBP seized one of its cannabis crude extract recovery machines. The agency didn't notify Root of the seizure but instead sent the importer an automated notice that the goods had been deemed excluded from entry. Root eventually learned of the seizure through an email from DOJ eight hours after filing its case at the Court of International Trade (Root Sciences v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1795).
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.
Throughout the case, the U.S. argued that its principle has been clear: CIT doesn't have jurisdiction to hear cases over seized goods but jurisdiction to see cases over excluded goods, as there was a protestable decision (see 2106300034). The trade court found that to be consistent with CIT and the district courts' actual jurisdiction. CIT also held that a seizure conducted within 30 days from when the goods were presented to CBP, “even if uncommunicated to the importer within those thirty days,” prevents the goods from being deemed excluded.
The importer took to the Federal Circuit seeking to establish that it has jurisdiction under Section 1581(a). Root argues the import was deemed excluded since a seizure is not an admissibility determination and only an admissibility determination can stop a deemed exclusion. Since it's deemed excluded, the exclusion can be protested, establishing jurisdiction at CIT, the importer said in its opening brief (see 2208300047).