Importer Says CBP Failed to Explain Reason for Detaining Ag Drone Controllers
CBP unlawfully excluded importer Agri Spray Drones' entries of drone controllers without explanation, the importer argued in a June 30 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Agri Spray Drones v. United States, CIT # 25-00141).
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.
Agri Spray said CBP failed to follow Section 1499 in not providing the importer with "the specific reason for the detention, the anticipated length of the detention, the nature of any tests or inquiries to be conducted, and the nature of any information which, if supplied to CBP may accelerate disposition of the detention."
The company attempted to enter 95 agricultural spraying drones, which consist of the drones, their controllers and operations' manuals, in March 2025. Agri Spray said CBP purportedly detained the merchandise on suspicion the company violated the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act and trademark laws.
Agri Spray said CBP subsequently let the company "manipulate the shipment and take possession and delivery of the drones." However, the agency then declined to release the drone controllers and manuals "without explanation." The importer said the controllers aren't subject to the UFLPA or trademark restrictions "and are admissible."
The importer tried to get an explanation from CBP officer Michael McDermott to no avail, eventually filing a protest of the detention. The agency didn't respond to the protest within 30 days, leading the company to file suit.