UniChem Urges CIT to Reject US Effort to Add Evidence of DEA Involvement in Seized Entry Case
Importer UniChem on Oct. 8 opposed the government's bid for leave to add correspondence between CBP and the DEA to the record of a case on seized weight loss dietary supplements, after the U.S. was confronted about its previous failure to add such communications to the record during oral argument at the Court of International Trade. The government is also seeking to respond to UniChem's claims regarding whether the court has jurisdiction now that CBP has allegedly seized the goods (UniChem Enterprises v. United States, CIT # 24-00033).
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.
UniChem said the U.S. "fails to cite any legal authority," nor any factual justification, "for its extraordinary request to radically deviate from this Court's scheduling order and briefing schedule" to add the correspondence and brief the jurisdictional question "several months out of time."
The entry at issue, which UniChem claims is a commonly used dietary supplement, was intercepted by the DEA on the suspicion that it contained a controlled substance. CBP detained the entry, prompting the present legal challenge. The U.S. claimed the trade court doesn't have jurisdiction over the matter, since it was the DEA and not CBP that truly seized the item, meaning no protectable decision took place (see 2405100064).
Oral argument was held, at which the trade court criticized the U.S. for failing to provide any contemporaneous documentary evidence on the DEA's involvement in CBP's seizure of the entry (see 2409200048). The U.S. then asked the court for leave to file correspondence between the two agencies.
In response, UniChem said there's no "legal or factual grounds" to grant the motion, noting that the U.S. failed "to even mention" any relevant legal or factual authorities in its brief. The importer said the U.S. doesn't even meet the court's standard for supplemental briefing that the correspondence be "newly discovered facts or argument arising after its prior filing."
Whether the DEA has admissibility authority over the entry and if it exercised that authority is at the center of this case, UniChem argued. As a result, it's apparent the U.S. could have included this correspondence in any one of its prior briefs "or at the very least brought it to oral argument. It did not," the company said. "Only after the Government apparently realized its motion is in serious trouble at the oral argument does it desperately seek to resurrect its case by searching for purportedly helpful communications."
UniChem said the court "should not reward the Government's failing" by granting the motion.