US Opposes Importer's Bid to Expedite Exclusion Case Given Jurisdictional Issues

The U.S. on March 13 opposed importer Unichem Enterprises' motion to expedite its customs case on CBP's exclusion of its entries of 7-keto dehydroepiandrosterone, saying the company "has failed to establish good cause for expediting this action" (Unichem Enterprises v. U.S., CIT # 24-00033).

The government said the matter isn't "as straightforward as plaintiff believes," and the Court of International Trade "may not have jurisdiction over this action" due to an ongoing investigation by the Drug Enforcement Administration into whether the imports violate "controlled substances law." As a result, "it would be premature for the Court to expedite this action" given that the U.S. will "be able to address jurisdiction" in its response ot the complaint.

In its motion, Unichem said good cause to expedite exists, pointing out that CBP "has recently admitted the same merchandise in another entry Plaintiff made following CBP's initiation of the instant detention, and the merchandise has an expiration date." In its opposition, the U.S. said deciding to expedite a case involving the denial of a customs protest on the exclusion of imports "is discretionary." It also called "CBP’s purported actions involving another entry not covered by this action ... irrelevant to whether expedited action is warranted here."

The U.S. also took aim at the importer's expiration date claim, arguing that Unichem made this claim "without any explanation or detail."