CIT Doesn't Have Jurisdiction to Hear Eteros' Claim of CBP 'Retaliation' for Court Win, US Says
The Court of International Trade doesn't have jurisdiction to hear importer Eteros Technologies USA's claim that CBP retaliated against the company's executives after the importer received a favorable ruling at the trade court, the U.S. argued. Filing a motion to dismiss at the trade court on May 2, the government said Eteros' claim revolves around two "immigration-related matters," which CIT doesn't have jurisdiction to hear (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.
Eteros received a favorable ruling in 2022 in which the trade court said the company could import "drug paraphernalia" that was legal to obtain at the state level (see 2209210034). Despite the decision and a CBP HQ ruling affirming the court's treatment of its imports, the importer said 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 complaint claimed jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), which says CIT has exclusive jurisdiction to hear matters arising out of any U.S. law that provides for tariffs, duties, embargoes and the like. In moving to dismiss the case, the U.S. said Section 1581(i) "on its face does not cover Eteros’s action because it does not arise out of an import transaction" but rather immigration-related issues for the two Eteros executives.
"Immigration law is governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and falls squarely under the jurisdiction of immigration courts and federal district courts," the brief said. Even if Eteros' case could be construed to cover the process of importing goods, "any exclusion of those goods would be covered by section 1581(a), as section 1581(i) may not be used to circumvent the requirements of the Court’s other jurisdictional provisions," the government added.
The U.S. said that in the over two years since the company was last before CIT, the importer has been able to enter its "cannabis paraphernalia products" into Washington state "uninterrupted" by CBP action. Without an import that has been barred in violation of the court's prior decision, "this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action," the brief said.