CIT Denies Reconsideration Bid to Establish Jurisdiction in Case Over Seized Drug Paraphernalia

Importer Root Sciences was denied on March 15 its motion for reconsideration of a Court of International Trade ruling that CBP's seizure of Root's imports precluded a deemed exclusion, stripping the court of jurisdiction over the case. Judge Gary Katzmann said that because the reconsideration motion "amounts to nothing more than a disagreement with the court’s reasoning on matters fully litigated, devoid of showing manifest error, it is insufficient to warrant reconsideration and is denied."

Root filed the case after CBP seized one of its cannabis crude extract recovery machines as “drug paraphernalia.” 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. The U.S. said the automated email was sent by an import specialist who “mistakenly believed” that merchandise after a seizure could still be deemed excluded. Root eventually learned of the seizure through an email from DOJ eight hours after it filed its case at CIT.

During litigation, Root accused DOJ of playing “judicial keep away” with the case, citing the department's history of arguing for improper jurisdiction in cases over seized and excluded merchandise in both CIT and district courts (see 2105030053). DOJ countered that its principle has been clear: CIT doesn't have jurisdiction to hear cases over seized goods but does have jurisdiction to hear cases over excluded goods, as there was a protestable decision (see 2106300034). The court found this to be consistent with CIT and the district courts' actual jurisdiction, dismissing the case (see 2110070022).

Root then moved for reconsideration, arguing that CIT created a "paradox," leaving the case in a " jurisdictional wilderness" (see 2111100042). The importer said that since the seizure isn't a determination of admissibility, it doesn't stop the running of the 30-day deemed exclusion period, leading Root to question what does. In response, the court said Root's arguments had already been fully litigated. "As Root Sciences merely disagrees with the court’s statutory interpretation without proving any 'manifest error,' the court declines to disturb its prior decision," Katzmann said.

(Root Sciences v. United States, Slip Op. 22-20, CIT #21-00123, dated 03/15/22, Judge Gary Katzmann. Attorneys: Richard O'Neill of Neville Peterson for plaintiff Root Sciences; Guy Eddon for defendant U.S. government)