UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Slip Op. 25-30

Before the Court in Eteros Technologies USA, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 25-00036, Slip Op. 25-30 (March 26, 2025) was a motion to expedite the briefing schedule of an action for declaratory relief requested by plaintiff, and a cross-motion opposing expedition. Eteros, a corporation engaged in the importation, manufacture, and distribution of agricultural machinery for various industries, including the cannabis and hemp processing industry, recently filed a declaratory judgment pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act that its importation of certain cannabis-related merchandise from Canada into the United States does not violate federal prohibitions on narcotics trafficking and distributing controlled substances. This action followed prior decisions of the Court of International Trade (Eteros I and Kierton USA, inc. v. United States, 46 CIT __, 600 F. Supp. 3d 1270 (2022)), where it was held that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) had unlawfully invoked federal controlled substance prohibitions to bar the companies’ imports from entering the United States through the state of Washington. Here, the plaintiff sought declaratory relief in connection to CBP’s invocation of federal immigration prohibitions to bar two of Eteros’ Canadian corporate officers from entering the United States. Plaintiff’s argument turned on the fact that the companies’ corporate officers’ absence from the United States inflicts a host of economic harms and deserves expedited treatment.

To determine whether “good cause” supports expediting briefing on this matter, the court applies the standard that good cause exists in a case where failure to expedite would result in mootness, depriving the relief requested of much of its value; in a case where failure to expedite would result in extraordinary hardship to a litigant; or where the public interest in enforcement of the statute is particularly strong. The Court found that plaintiff failed to show that good cause existed here, since plaintiff made no allegation that adherence to a standard briefing schedule—as opposed to an expedited one—would result in mootness of the issue or deprive the relief requested of much of its value. The Court did not find any time-sensitive harms that will become irremediable in two months versus five months. Similarly, the Court found that no extraordinary hardship would occur during the interval between the requested sixty-day briefing timeline and a standard timeline. This was despite showing that a litany of ongoing harms to the company that result from the absence of its corporate officers from the United States, including the officers’ inability to directly oversee U.S. business operations, supervise U.S.-based staff, attend industry events, manage inventory. For the company, corporate officers’ absence has led to costly contract services to fill certain of the functions that require the officers’ physical presence in the United States, as well as harmed relationships with customers, business partners, and employees, thwarted recruitment efforts, and hampered Plaintiff’s ability to rely on predictable enforcement of customs laws. Nevertheless, the Court found that Eteros can continue to operate, even if less efficiently in the U.S. market during the course of litigation. Further, the Court did not find a convincing showing that plaintiff would suffer hardship during the pendency of this case in forms that would make it extraordinary as compared to what an ordinary plaintiff awaiting possible relief in similar circumstances would suffer. Lastly, the Court was not persuaded that plaintiff’s position and expedited request would serve the public’s reliance interest.