CIT Dismisses Importer's Suit Alleging CBP Retaliation for Court Win
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 6 dismissed importer Eteros Technologies USA's case against CBP's alleged retaliation for the importer's success in a previous CIT case concerning the admissibility of its marijuana trimmers. Judge Gary Katzmann said the court doesn't have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case, since it doesn't arise out of a "law of the United States providing for" trade-related action.
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.
The judge added that relief isn't needed to effectuate the trade court's prior decision admitting Eteros' products, since no party disputes that CBP followed the trade court's prior directive to admit the importer's cannabis trimmers.
Eteros prevailed before the trade court in 2022, with Katzmann ruling that 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, for one of them, CEO Aaron McKellar, banning him from entering the U.S. for five years (see 2501300018).
Eteros then filed suit to contest CBP's actions under Section 1581(i), which gives the court "residual" jurisdiction regarding the "administration and enforcement" of matters decided under its other jurisdictional grants, including its protest jurisdiction, which Eteros claimed in its initial case.
Rejecting this argument, Katzmann held that it doesn't "track the language" of Section 1581(i), which requires a party to identify a "law of the United States" out of which their claim "arises." This law must then provide for one of the trade-related actions laid out in the court's jurisdictional provisions.
The judge said Eteros failed to identify such a law. The importer's claim that the case arises out of "CBP’s unlawful enforcement of the import laws, and misuse of its authority" would read the phrase "law of the United States providing for" out of Section 1581(i), the judge said.
Katzmann added that his decision in Eteros' prior case can't stand as the relevant law of the U.S. If court opinions qualified as "law[s]" under Section 1581(i), the statute "would confer jurisdiction to hear all follow-on litigation from any case brought under § 1581, regardless of its subject matter." This would mean the statute's "scope would cease to be 'strictly limited' under such a reading," the judge said.
Eteros also failed to show how its case involves "administration and enforcement" with regard to a customs matter, the judge added. While Eteros said CBP engaged in retaliatory conduct, all of the relevant actions relate to the "entry of Eteros’s executives into the United States" and don't relate to the "denial of a protest" as to the "exclusion of merchandise from entry," the judge noted. Katzmann said, "at best," customs law is "lurking in the background" of this case.
The importer alternatively argued that CIT could hear the case to enforce its judgment in the company's first case. Katzmann also rejected this claim, noting that the court will only grant a motion to enforce a judgment when a prevailing party shows that a defendant hasn't complied with the court's judgment.
"Eteros does not make this showing," Katzmann held, noting that no one disputes that CBP complied with the court's directive to admit the importer's cannabis trimmers.
The court said that while jurisdiction isn't available at CIT, it may be available elsewhere. The trade court "does not hoard its prior rulings for private use. Eteros I, as a public decision of a United States court, is free to be cited in any forum for whatever authority it may impart in a given case," Katzmann said. Eteros concurrently filed another lawsuit against CBP's actions in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
(Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, Slip Op. 25-99, CIT # 25-00036, dated 08/06/25; Judge: Gary Katzmann; Attorneys: Richard O'Neill of Neville Peterson for Eteros Technologies USA; Guy Eddon for defendant U.S. government)