Michigan Company Challenges CBP Seizures, Moves to Stop CBP Seizure of Marijuana Accessories
A Michigan-based vaporizer, rolling paper and pipe importer, ASHH, is challenging CBP’s seizure of its goods, saying that the agency wrongly characterized its imports as “drug paraphernalia.” Even if the goods were labeled as such, they would still be exempt from seizure since the plain text of two Michigan laws legalizing marijuana exempts the goods from seizure, the importer said. ASHH is also seeking a permanent injunction against CBP from further violations of Michigan’s marijuana legalization laws or federal regulations defining drug paraphernalia, according to a May 24 complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Between November 2019 and May 2021, ASHH had multiple shipments of CBD and hemp accessories seized by CBP. CBP classified the shipments as drug paraphernalia, prompting a challenge to this label by the company.
ASHH is basing its argument on the 2018 Farm Bill -- a piece of federal legislation laying out eight criteria on which to determine whether an item is drug paraphernalia. To be considered drug paraphernalia, regulators must consider instructions, oral or written, provided with the item, the importer said. Since the written instructions provided by ASHH “relate solely to the use of the products with CBD or other hemp products that are now legal for use throughout the United States,” the goods are legal and should not be subject to seizure, it said.
Assuming that the goods are classifiable as drug paraphernalia, ASHH also argues that the goods should not have been seized due to two Michigan laws legalizing medical and recreational marijuana -- the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act and the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act, respectively. Seeing as the MRTMA provides that “use, manufacture, possession and purchase of marihuana” is not grounds for seizing or forfeiting property, the seizures were illegal, the company said. ASHH asked for a preliminary and permanent injunction against any further CBP violation of the Farm Bill, MMMA or MRTMA. “If not enjoined by this Court, Defendants will continue to improperly detain and seize Plaintiff’s property,” the company said.