{"id":1598,"date":"2022-10-03T14:13:16","date_gmt":"2022-10-03T14:13:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/salzhauershortt.com\/?p=1598"},"modified":"2025-05-23T05:29:26","modified_gmt":"2025-05-23T05:29:26","slug":"cannabis-paraphernalia-custom-and-border-protection-loses-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/salzhauershortt.com\/index.php\/2022\/10\/03\/cannabis-paraphernalia-custom-and-border-protection-loses-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Cannabis Paraphernalia: Custom and Border Protection Loses Case"},"content":{"rendered":"

The United States Court of International Trade recently issued an opinion on whether a company in Washington state could import drug paraphernalia, specifically cannabis trimming equipment. That case,\u00a0<\/em>Eteros Technologies USA vs. United States<\/em><\/a>, concerns \u201cthe interplay between the federal and state systems, specifically the Washington State system, governing marijuana-related drug paraphernalia. It arises from Customs and Border Protection (\u2018CBP\u2019)\u2019s exclusion from entry at the Port of Blaine, Washington of Plaintiff\u2019s motor frame assemblies — component parts of an agricultural machine designed to separate the leaf from the flower of cannabis or other plant material — on the grounds that the machine constituted drug paraphernalia prohibited by the federal Controlled Substances Act (\u2018CSA\u2019).\u201d In\u00a0Eteros<\/em>\u00a0the Court held that Washington\u2019s repeal of certain prohibitions related to marijuana drug paraphernalia exempted the federal prohibition on importing drug paraphernalia.<\/p>\n

Legal Basis<\/strong><\/h4>\n

Under federal law, specifically the CSA, it is unlawful for any person to import or export drug paraphernalia. 21 USC 863. CBP, therefore, is instructed to seize any paraphernalia it finds because under the CSA, paraphernalia is prohibited. However, the CSA also states that \u201c[t]his section shall not apply to[,] any person authorized by local,\u00a0State<\/u>, or Federal law to manufacture, possess, or distribute such items.\u201d\u00a0Id<\/em>. at 863(f)(1) (emphasis added). Washington, as anyone who reads this blog knows, has legalized marijuana, or cannabis as it\u2019s now known in the state. As a result, the state\u2019s definition of paraphernalia-related crimes exempts items used with cannabis from the prohibitions related to paraphernalia. The question presented, as framed by the Court of International Trade, was whether, by repealing a prohibition on the possession of cannabis-related drug paraphernalia, the state of Washington had \u201cauthorized\u201d Etros to possess trimming equipment specifically designed to separate leaves from cannabis flower.<\/p>\n

Facts<\/strong><\/h4>\n

Eteros Technologies USA (Eteros) attempted to import a \u201cMobius M108S Trimmer\u201d designed to separate flower from the other parts of the plant through the port in Blaine, Washington. The trimmer was detained and CBP investigated. CBP questioned Eteros on whether the trimmer was capable of being used on marijuana in addition to hemp (a silly question, as both are the same plant). Eteros distributed the product but did not have access to end users or how the trimmer would be used. Eteros argued to the CBP that the trimmer was intended for hemp and that in any event it was not paraphernalia because of Washington\u2019s legalization of marijuana. CBP disagreed and Eteros sued. The Court focused on the question of whether or not Washington law authorized the importation of the trimmer at issue.<\/p>\n

Court\u2019s Reasoning<\/strong><\/h4>\n

The crux of the case essentially came down to this<\/p>\n