Eteros Asks CIT for Speedy Resolution of Case on CBP's 'Retaliation' Against Company Execs
Importer Eteros Technologies asked the Court of International Trade for an expedited briefing schedule in its suit alleging that CBP retaliated against the company's executives after the company received a favorable ruling at the Court of International Trade (see 2501300018). Eteros said a speedy resolution of the case is needed "to resolve the legal uncertainties created by CBP’s defiance of this Court’s Article III powers and the reach of its national jurisdiction" and its "prior judgments and orders" (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00036).
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.
In 2022, the trade court said Eteros could permissibly import "drug paraphernalia." The court found that Washington state's decision to make the importation of marijuana-related drug paraphernalia legal fell under a state exemption allowing such action under federal narcotics laws (see 2209210034). The trade court ruled similarly a month later in a separate case involving importer Keirton USA (see 2210200033). Neither decision was appealed by the U.S.
CBP then issued an HQ ruling affirming the trade court's treatment of the drug paraphernalia imports, finding that "cannabis-related merchandise intended for states with legalized cannabis industries may be lawfully imported under the [federal] exemption."
Eteros alleged that despite these rulings, CBP officers in Washington retaliated against two Canadian Eteros executives, Amanda James and Aaron McKellar, by denying them the right to enter the U.S. and, in McKellar's case, banning him from entering the country for five years.
In defending the decision to remove McKellar from the U.S., CBP area port director for Blaine, Washington, Harmit Gill, said that McKellar and Eteros are encouraging and aiding in the production of marijuana for distribution, and are thus "aiding and abetting the narcotics trafficking of marijuana in the United States." Gill said CIT's rulings only addressed the "import restrictions" on drug paraphernalia and had "no basis on the federal legality or immigration consequences" related to a non-citizen's involvement in the marijuana industry.
Now seeking expedited adjudication of its challenge to CBP's actions, Eteros argued that failure to expedite "would result in mootness or deprive" relief of "much of its value," failure to expedite "would result in extraordinary hardship," and "public interest in enforcement of the statute is particularly strong."
The importer said that without a sped-up case, the company "will continue to face operational disruption, financial losses, reputational harm, and erosion of employee morale." As for the extraordinary hardship faced by CBP's actions, Eteros said the government's actions "are both immediate and multifaceted, creating operational, financial, reputational, and workforce-related challenges." The importer said both McKellar and James "play vital roles in overseeing the company’s U.S. operations," ensuring regulatory compliance and maintaining key relationships with "customers and stakeholders."
Eteros added that it's suffering extensive financial and reputational losses from CBP's actions, including through "missed sales opportunities," loss of customer confidence and "erosion of industry relationships," among other things.
The company also said that public interest supports an expedited case, given that the "legal cannabis industry’s operations depend significantly on the lawful importation of cannabis processing equipment." There also exists strong public interest in the "interpretation and enforcement" of the law permitting the importation of drug paraphernalia where a state has made it legal, including by adjudication of CBP's efforts to enforce this law by "using admissions of activity" as a basis for charging individuals engaged in lawful activity "with criminal narcotics trafficking."
Eteros said that if "you can’t stop the importation of marijuana equipment into states which have legalized marijuana by excluding and seizing the equipment, CBP reckons, it can do so by accusing the importers of drug trafficking."