US Says Progress Made on Talks to Settle Case Over Imports Seized as 'Drug Paraphernalia'
The U.S. said that negotiations between it and importer Root Sciences over whether the company's imports should be seized as "drug paraphernalia" have "achieved substantial progress." Filing for its fifth extension of time over its reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. said that it and Root have been discussing how to settle the matter ever since the importer's informal proposal for negotiations (Root Sciences v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1795).
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!
Root Sciences filed the case after CBP seized one of its cannabis crude extract recovery machines. The agency didn't notify Root of the seizure but instead sent the importer an automated notice that the goods had been deemed excluded from entry. Root eventually learned of the seizure through an email from DOJ eight hours after filing its case at the Court of International Trade.
Throughout the case, the U.S. argued that its principle has been clear: CIT doesn't have jurisdiction to hear cases on seized goods but does have jurisdiction to hear cases on excluded goods, as there was a protestable decision (see 2106300034). The trade court found that to be consistent with CIT and the district courts' actual jurisdiction. CIT also held that a seizure conducted within 30 days from when the goods were presented to CBP, “even if uncommunicated to the importer within those thirty days,” prevents the goods from being deemed excluded. The importer took to the appellate court seeking to establish that it has jurisdiction under Section 1581(a).