CIT Denies Expedited Case for Eteros Over CBP 'Retaliation' for Court Win
The Court of International Trade on March 26 denied importer Eteros Technologies USA an expedited briefing schedule in its case alleging that CBP retaliated against the company's executives after the importer received a favorable ruling at the trade court. Judge Gary Katzmann said Eteros hasn't shown that "good cause" warrants a speedy resolution of the case.
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.
Eteros received a favorable ruling from the trade court in 2022 in which the court said the company could import "drug paraphernalia" that was legal to obtain at the state level (see 2209210034). The importer said that, despite the decision and a CBP HQ ruling affirming the court's treatment of its imports, CBP officers retaliated against two Canadian Eteros executives by denying them the right to enter the U.S. and, in one executive's case, banning him from entering the country for five years (see 2501300018).
The importer brought cases before CIT and in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, challenging CBP's actions as illicit retaliation for the company's success in court. Eteros filed for an expedited schedule for its case, claiming that it needed a quick resolution of the matter due to the harm caused by the CBP officers.
Katzmann first laid out the standard for assessing motions for expedited briefing schedules, which was established by the trade court in the 2006 decision Ontario Forest Industries Ass'n v. U.S. The decision said the motion should be granted where "failure to expedite would result in mootness or deprive the relief requested of much of its value," "failure to expedite would result in extraordinary hardship to a litigant" and where the public interest in enforcing the statute is "particularly strong."
First assessing whether the requested relief would be mooted or stripped of its value without an expedited suit, Katzmann held that no allegation has been made that this would be the case. While Eteros said it will continue to face operational disruption, financial losses, reputational harm, erosion of employee morale and an inability to oversee U.S. operations, these aren't "time-sensitive harms that will become irremediable in the near future," the court said. The importer doesn't explain why the relief it seeks "would offer significant value if obtained in two months" but of negligible value in five.
Katzmann then held that Eteros failed to show that it would suffer "extraordinary hardship" if the case proceeded as normal. The importer highlighted its inability to oversee U.S. business operations, noting an "industry mismanagement" incident that has already occurred in Las Vegas as a result of CBP's actions. The judge said even if these harms "are not insignificant," Eteros failed to show that they "amount to extraordinary hardship."
All the importer has shown is that its international business suffers from "barriers to international travel," the court said. "Eteros can continue operating -- albeit less efficiently in the U.S. market -- during the course of litigation." In addition, the importer doesn't allege that its harm is "more severe than that suffered by an ordinary plaintiff who awaits possible relief," Katzmann said.
Lastly, Eteros said its case is a "matter of substantial public interest," since the court must ensure that Eteros can engage in "this lawful activity" without "threats of felony prosecution, imprisonment, deportation, or other penalties." Katzmann held that "virtually all cases -- and therefore no cases -- would receive expedited treatment" if this were a "sufficient basis for good cause." It's unclear "why the particular interpretation" of the law sought by Eteros "would serve the public’s reliance interest any more than the interpretations inherent in an ordinary case," the court said.
(Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, Slip Op. 25-30, CIT # 25-00036, dated 03/26/25; Judge: Gary Katzmann; Attorneys: Richard O'Neill of Neville Peterson for plaintiff Eteros Technologies USA; Guy Eddon for defendant U.S. government)