`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
`
`
` --------------------------------------------------------------------- X
`ROOT SCIENCES, LLC
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`THE UNITED STATES
`:
`
`:
`Defendant.
`
`
`:
`
` --------------------------------------------------------------------- X
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`No. 21-00123
`
`Plaintiff, ROOT SCIENCES LLC, by and through its undersigned counsel, for its
`
`Complaint in this matter against Defendant, the UNITED STATES, does hereby state, plead, and
`
`allege as follows:
`
`CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This action is commenced by Plaintiff Root Sciences LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Root
`
`Sciences”) to contest the deemed denial of its protest against the exclusion of certain merchandise,
`
`consisting of certain parts for a Cryo-Ethanol Extraction System (Devex GmbH Model No.
`
`CryoEXS 400), from entry into the United States.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`2.
`
`This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1581(a).
`
`PARTIES
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Root Sciences is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
`
`the State of Washington. Headquartered in Belfair, WA, it is engaged in the importation,
`
`manufacture, and distribution of merchandise for the cannabis and hemp processing industry.
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00123-GSK Document 15 Filed 03/24/21 Page 2 of 16
`
`Among Root Sciences’ customers are processors of hemp, which is legal under Federal law and
`
`the laws of most states including, as relevant here, California and Washington State. Additionally,
`
`Root Sciences distributes its merchandise to state-licensed processors of legal hemp and cannabis
`
`whose use of the merchandise is subject to stringent state authorization and licensing systems.
`
`Plaintiff’s imported merchandise has been excluded by CBP at the Port of Los Angeles/Long
`
`Beach, Port Code 2704.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant United States is the federal defendant. The actions complained of herein
`
`were undertaken by its agency U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs” or “CBP”), which
`
`is a component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). CBP is the federal agency
`
`charged with making admissibility determinations under 19 U.S.C. § 1595a.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`5.
`
`Root Sciences imported the subject merchandise, described below, into the U.S.
`
`under cover of Los Angeles/Long Beach (“LA/LB”) Entry No. F23-9253382-4 on December 18,
`
`2020. See Customs Form (“CF”) 7501, Compl. Ex. A, at Protest Ex. B.
`
`6.
`
`The merchandise in Entry No. F23-9253382-4 was presented to CBP for
`
`examination on or around December 18, 2020. It consists of certain parts, specifically the feed
`
`vessel, for a Cryo-Ethanol Extraction System (Devex GmbH Model No. CryoEXS 400)
`
`(“CryoEXS400”). The CryoEXS 400 is an all-in-one cryo-extraction, solvent recovery and
`
`decarboxylation system designed for the recovery of cannabis crude extract from cannabis
`
`biomass. Cryo-ethanol extraction (a/k/a cold ethanol extraction) is an efficient solution for large-
`
`scale hemp and cannabis processing. It produces a cannabinoid-rich crude extract that is ideal for
`
`further refinement (e.g., using short-path distillation machines) into high purity distillates and
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00123-GSK Document 15 Filed 03/24/21 Page 3 of 16
`
`isolates. The CryoEXS400 is manufactured by Devex GmbH, of Splieterstr. 70, 48231 Warendorf,
`
`Germany (“Devex”). See e.g., CryoEXS 400 Product Brochure, Compl. Ex. A, at Protest Ex. C.
`
`7.
`
`The CryoEXS400 is depicted below (id.):
`
`The parts of the CryoEXS400 imported under cover of Entry No. F23-9253382-4, which are at
`
`issue in this action, consist of the hopper feed vessel of the CryoEXS400 (the “Subject
`
`Merchandise”), which is depicted in the upper left portion of the above-image, and isolated below
`
`in the following image (id.):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`CBP detained the Subject Merchandise on January 13, 2021. See DHS Form 6051,
`
`Detention Notice and Custody Receipt for Detained Property (“Notice of Detention”), Compl.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00123-GSK Document 15 Filed 03/24/21 Page 4 of 16
`
`Ex. A, at Protest Ex. A. The Notice of Detention, which is the best evidence of its contents, states
`
`that the Subject Merchandise was detained on suspicion that it was “possible drug paraphernalia.”
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff, on its own accord, through its agents, and/or through counsel, has made
`
`numerous requests for an opportunity to confer with CBP at the Port of LA/LB. These requests
`
`have been made as early as January 2021 orally by telephone and voicemail to LA/LB’s entry
`
`specialist teams, LA/LB’s Trade Interface Unit (“TIU”), and to personnel at the CBP Center for
`
`Excellence and Expertise (“CEE”) for Machinery, which is headquartered at the Port of Laredo,
`
`TX, and in writing by e-mail to LA/LB’s entry specialist teams and LA/LB’s TIU. On each
`
`occasion, CBP has refused to substantively communicate information about the detention,
`
`affording Plaintiff no opportunity to correspond or communicate with CBP about the Subject
`
`Merchandise.
`
`10.
`
`CBP has not issued any requests for information or other inquiries to plaintiff
`
`regarding the excluded merchandise.
`
`11.
`
`The Subject Merchandise was deemed excluded by operation of 19 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1499(c)(5) thirty (30) days after issuance of the notice of detention.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff timely protested the deemed exclusion of the Subject Merchandise on
`
`February 18, 2021 by filing LA/LB Port Protest No. 2704-21152312 (the “Protest”), pursuant to
`
`19 C.F.R. § 1499(c), and 19 C.F.R. §§ 174.13 and 174.21(b), which require review and action by
`
`CBP “within 30 days from the date the protest was filed.” See Protest and Memorandum of Points
`
`and Authorities in Support of Protest, Compl. Ex. A. The CBP regulations further provide that
`
`“[a]ny protest filed pursuant to this paragraph which is not allowed or denied in whole or in part
`
`before the 30th day after the day on which the protest was filed shall be treated as having been
`
`denied on such 30th day for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1581.”
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00123-GSK Document 15 Filed 03/24/21 Page 5 of 16
`
`13.
`
`The subject excluded merchandise is intended for, and necessary for, a
`
`CRYOEX400 Cryo-Ethanol Extraction System which is being installed at the premises of one of
`
`plaintiff’s customers, which customer is located in the State of California.
`
`14.
`
`California is a State which has legalized marijuana and whose laws authorize the
`
`possession, installation and use of devices for the processing of cannabis, such as the CRYOEX400
`
`Cryo-Ethanol Extraction System.
`
`15.
`
`The protest, and supporting materials submitted therewith, contended that the
`
`Subject Merchandise is used in the hemp and cannabis industry but is not an importation contrary
`
`to law under 19 U.S.C. § 1595(a)(c)(2), and is not prohibited “drug paraphernalia” under 21 U.S.C.
`
`§ 863(a). See Compl. Ex. A. Rather, it is subject to the authorization exemption of 21 U.S.C. §
`
`863(f)(1), which allows those “authorized by local, State, or Federal law” to engage in the
`
`otherwise prohibited conduct, including the importation of the Subject Merchandise. The Subject
`
`Merchandise should have been allowed entry because its distribution, possession, and manufacture
`
`has been explicitly authorized by the laws of the State of California, and Washington State.
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff’s protest was deemed denied pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 174.21(b) on March
`
`20, 2021—i.e., “the 30th day after the day on which the protest was filed … ” Id.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff timely filed this action to challenge the denial of its protest on March 22,
`
`2021.
`
`COUNT I
`
`18.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 17 are restated and incorporated by reference as though fully
`
`set out herein.
`
`19. Merchandise may be excluded from entry, and subjected to other sanctions, if inter
`
`alia “its importation or entry is subject to any restriction or prohibition which is imposed by law
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00123-GSK Document 15 Filed 03/24/21 Page 6 of 16
`
`relating to health, safety, or conservation and the merchandise is not in compliance with the
`
`applicable rule, regulation, or statute[.]” 19 U.S.C. § 1595a(c)(2)(A).
`
`20. Merchandise imported into the United States in violation of the drug paraphernalia
`
`restrictions of the Mail Order Drug Paraphernalia Control Act of 1986 (“Paraphernalia Control
`
`Act”), Pub. L. 99-570, 100 Stat. 3207-51, 21 U.S.C. § 863, see also Controlled Substances Act
`
`(“CSA”), Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-513,
`
`84 Stat. 1236 (codified as amended at 21 U.S.C. §§ 801-972), can be excluded, and seized by CBP
`
`under authority of 19 U.S.C. § 1595a(c)(2)(A). 21 U.S.C. § 863. The CSA makes it “unlawful for
`
`any person—
`
`(1) to sell or offer for sale drug paraphernalia;
`
`(2) to use the mails or any other facility of interstate commerce to transport drug
`paraphernalia; or
`
`(3) to import or export drug paraphernalia.
`
`Id. at § 863(a).
`
`21.
`
`“Marijuana” is defined as “all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether
`
`growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every
`
`compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin.”
`
`21 U.S.C. § 806(a)(16)(A). “Marijuana” is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance under
`
`federal law, making it unlawful for any person to knowingly possess, dispense, distribute, or
`
`manufacture it. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a).
`
`22.
`
`“Hemp” is defined as “the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant,
`
`including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and
`
`salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [“THC”]
`
`concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.” 7 U.S.C. § 1639o(1). Hemp
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00123-GSK Document 15 Filed 03/24/21 Page 7 of 16
`
`plants naturally contain a variable amount of the compounds CBD and typically contain less than
`
`1% THC. Marijuana, on the other hand, typically contains 5% THC or more. CBD can also be
`
`found in cannabis strains that possess significant levels of THC compounds; in other cases, CBD
`
`is found in strains that do not possess more than trace amounts of THC.
`
`23.
`
`“Drug paraphernalia,” as statutorily defined, covers a wide range of items used to
`
`prepare, conceal, and ingest controlled substances. According to the Paraphernalia Control Act,
`
`which is the best evidence of its contents, “Drug Paraphernalia” is defined as:
`
` … any equipment, product, or material of any kind which is primarily intended or
`designed for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, concealing,
`producing, processing, preparing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise
`introducing into the human body a controlled substance, possession of which is
`unlawful under this subchapter. It includes items primarily intended or designed for
`use in ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing marijuana, cocaine, hashish,
`hashish oil, PCP, methamphetamine, or amphetamines into the human body …
`
`Id. at § 863(d).
`
`24.
`
`The Paraphernalia Control Act makes unlawful certain paraphernalia-related
`
`activities, id. at § 863(a), but the prohibition is not absolute.
`
`25.
`
`Congress enacted a statutory exemption to the Paraphernalia Control Act at 21
`
`U.S.C. § 863(f)(1), which demands consideration of local, state, and/or federal authorizations of
`
`the manufacture, possession, or distribution of merchandise meeting the federal definition of “drug
`
`paraphernalia,” providing (emphasis added):
`
`(f) Exemptions. This section shall not apply to—
`
`(1) any person authorized by local, State, or Federal law to manufacture,
`possess, or distribute such items.
`
`This exemption removes the prohibitions of § 863(a) for any “person”—including corporate
`
`persons—authorized by local, state, or federal law to manufacture, possess, or distribute “drug
`
`paraphernalia.”
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00123-GSK Document 15 Filed 03/24/21 Page 8 of 16
`
`26.
`
`Although prohibited by federal law, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), nearly every state has
`
`legalized marijuana in one form or another. See Robert A. Mikos, Only One State Has Not Yet
`
`Legalized Marijuana
`
`in
`
`Some
`
`Form … , Vand. U.
`
`(July
`
`16,
`
`2018),
`
`https://my.vanderbilt.edu/marijuanalaw/2018/11/update-voters-in-3-of-4-states-approve-
`
`marijuana-legalization-measures (last accessed March 17, 2021). Numerous states have enacted
`
`laws legalizing, inter alia, the growing, processing, possession and distribution and sale of
`
`marijuana for, inter alia, recreational and medical use. As of Nov. 3, 2020, 36 states (including
`
`Washington D.C.) have adopted medical marijuana laws, and 15 of those states (in addition to
`
`Washington DC) have adopted recreational marijuana laws. See Robert A. Mikos, Marijuana
`
`Reforms Win
`
`Big
`
`at
`
`the
`
`Polls … Vand.
`
`U.
`
`(November
`
`4,
`
`2020),
`
`https://my.vanderbilt.edu/marijuanalaw/2020/11/marijuana-reforms-win-big-at-the-polls/
`
`(last
`
`accessed March 17, 2021). States have also enacted laws legalizing and authorizing the
`
`manufacture, possession, and distribution of merchandise meeting the federal definition of “drug
`
`paraphernalia,” see 21 U.S.C. § 863(d), by persons over the age of 21.
`
`27.
`
`Congress prescribed that the operation of the Paraphernalia Control Act would be
`
`inapplicable in cases where a State has enacted laws legalizing, taxing, and/or regulating the use,
`
`possession, and distribution of medical and recreational marijuana. The federal authorization
`
`exemption, 21 U.S.C. § 863(f)(1), makes clear that CBP has no authority to seize (or exclude, by
`
`refusing to make an admissibility determination) imported “drug paraphernalia,” as defined under
`
`§ 863(d), as an importation “contrary to law” under 19 U.S.C. § 1595a(c), when state law serves
`
`to authorize its manufacture, possession, or distribution. Congress clearly empowered States to
`
`enact laws that take advantage of the 21 U.S.C. § 863(f)(1) authorization exemption so that all
`
`persons (whether individual or corporate) doing lawful business under the laws of a relevant
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00123-GSK Document 15 Filed 03/24/21 Page 9 of 16
`
`State(s) can be shielded from the consequences that may otherwise attach under the Paraphernalia
`
`Control Act.
`
`28.
`
`Root Sciences is a Washington State limited liability corporation with its principal
`
`place of business in Belfair, WA.
`
`29. Washington State legalized the recreational use of marijuana in 2012 when its
`
`citizens voted to pass Initiative 502 (“I-502”), 2013 Wash. Laws. ch. 3, § 20(3). The Washington
`
`State Liquor and Cannabis Board (“WSLCB”) regulates Washington’s cannabis market, creating
`
`and enforcing rules regarding marijuana. Per the Revised Code of Washington (“RCW”), which is
`
`the best evidence of its contents, a person in the State of Washington violates the drug
`
`paraphernalia laws if they use, deliver, or possess any “equipment, products, [or] materials of any
`
`kind” to “plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce,
`
`process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest, inhale, or
`
`otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled substance other than marijuana.”
`
`RCW 69.50.412 (emphasis added); see also WAC 314-55-010 (excluding from the definition of
`
`“paraphernalia” all “items for growing, cultivating, and processing marijuana[.]”). Accordingly,
`
`under Washington State law, the possession, manufacture, or distribution of marijuana-related
`
`“equipment, products, and materials of any kind” is authorized.
`
`30. Washington State law imposes significant and stringent requirements on marijuana
`
`extractors. See e.g., WAC 314-55-104 (“Marijuana Processor License Extraction Requirements”),
`
`which is the best evidence of its contents. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the
`
`following:
`
`• Professional grade closed loop extraction system must be commercially
`manufactured and bear a permanently affixed and visible serial number;
`• Licensed engineer review and prior certification from state-licensed engineer must
`be provided to the WSLCB to certify that the system was (i) commercially
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00123-GSK Document 15 Filed 03/24/21 Page 10 of 16
`
`manufactured; (ii) safe for its intended use (i.e., as a professional grade closed loop
`extraction system); and (iii) built to “codes of recognized and generally accepted
`good engineering practices” (e.g., ASME, ANSI, UL, ASTM).
`• Certification of the professional grade closed loop extraction system must contain
`signature and stamp of a professional engineer and the serial number of the ex-
`traction unit being certified.
`• Before the item is sold, the technical report accompanying a particular professional
`grade closed loop extraction system must be approved by the state building code
`officials, see e.g., WAC 51-54A-3800.
`
`31.
`
`The merchandise which is the subject of this request was imported into the United
`
`States before being detained and excluded at the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach, CA.
`
`32.
`
`Cannabis in California has been legal for medical use since 1996, and for
`
`recreational use since 2016. California’s marijuana paraphernalia law specifically addresses the
`
`federal Paraphernalia Control Act and authorization exemption of 21 U.S.C. § 863(f)(1). See
`
`Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act, 2016 Cal. Legis. Serv. 1 (codified as
`
`amended in scattered sections of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, Cal. Food & Agric. Code, Cal. Health &
`
`Safety Code, Cal. Lab. Code, Cal. Rev. & Tax Code, and Cal. Water Code). California’s marijuana
`
`paraphernalia law, which is the best evidence of its contents, (i) makes it “lawful” to possess,
`
`transport, purchase, procure, use, manufacture, and give away marijuana “accessories” to persons
`
`over twenty-one years of age, see Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.1(a)(5) (“[i]t shall be lawful
`
`under state and local law…for persons 21 years of age or older to…[p]ossess, transport, purchase,
`
`obtain, use, manufacture, or give away cannabis accessories to persons 21 years of age or older
`
`without any compensation whatsoever.”); and (ii) defines marijuana “accessories” with language
`
`that closely follows the federal definition of paraphernalia, stating:
`
`“Cannabis accessories” means any equipment, products or materials of any kind
`which are used, intended for use, or designed for use in planting, propagating,
`cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting,
`producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging,
`storing, smoking, vaporizing, or containing cannabis, or for ingesting, inhaling, or
`otherwise introducing cannabis or cannabis products into the human body.;
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00123-GSK Document 15 Filed 03/24/21 Page 11 of 16
`
`See Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11018.2; cf 21 U.S.C. § 863(d) (“The term ‘drug paraphernalia’
`
`means any equipment, product, or material of any kind which is primarily intended or designed
`
`for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, concealing, producing, processing, preparing,
`
`injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance,
`
`possession of which is unlawful ...”); (iii) clarifies that by making paraphernalia-related activities
`
`lawful, the California law “intend[s] to meet the requirements of subsection (f) of Section 863 of
`
`Title 21 of the United States Code (21 U.S.C. Sec. 863(f))”—the 21 U.S.C. § 863(f)(1)
`
`authorization exemption—“by authorizing, under state law, any person in compliance with this
`
`section to manufacture, possess, or distribute cannabis accessories,” see Cal. Health & Safety Code
`
`§ 11362.1(b); and (iv) that paraphernalia should not be subject to the penalties imposed by the
`
`Paraphernalia Control Act, stating that items deemed “lawful” by the provision “are not contraband
`
`nor subject to seizure, and no conduct deemed lawful by this [provision] shall constitute the basis
`
`for detention, search, or arrest.” Id. § 11362.1(c).
`
`33.
`
`California and Washington State laws concerning marijuana paraphernalia
`
`affirmatively authorize conduct otherwise prohibited by the federal Paraphernalia Control Act,
`
`deeming federally prohibited paraphernalia activities “lawful” and eliminating the Paraphernalia
`
`Control Act’s prohibitions, including the federal prohibition on importation contained at 21 U.S.C.
`
`§ 863(a), and attaching consequences, including seizure and forfeiture, id. at § 863(c). By invoking
`
`the authorization exemption of 21 U.S.C. § 863(f)(1), Washington State and California laws inter
`
`alia eliminate the federal prohibition on importing marijuana paraphernalia, which also serves to
`
`eliminate any claim that the importation of marijuana paraphernalia into such states is an
`
`importation “contrary to law” under 19 U.S.C. § 1595a(c).
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00123-GSK Document 15 Filed 03/24/21 Page 12 of 16
`
`34. While 21 U.S.C. § 863(f)(1) clearly exempts from the prohibitions of 21 U.S.C.
`
`§ 863(a) any person who is authorized by local, state, or federal law to manufacture, possess, or
`
`distribute “drug paraphernalia,” CBP has not consistently recognized this statutory exemption in
`
`determining the admissibility of cannabis and hemp processing equipment and parts thereof when
`
`imported into states such as California and Washington State that have explicitly authorized the
`
`possession, distribution, and manufacture of merchandise meeting the federal definition of “drug
`
`paraphernalia.” 19 U.S.C. § 863(d).
`
`35.
`
`The Subject Merchandise, consisting of parts to the CryoEXS400 extraction
`
`system, has been subject to prior review and certification by third party engineers as required by
`
`state law and related regulations. See e.g., WAC 314-55-104. The Engineer Certification Report
`
`(see Pressure Safety Inspectors, Technical Report No. 201910008, Rev. 0 (August 20, 2020), see
`
`Compl. Ex. A, at Protest Ex. D), demonstrates that the CryoEXS 400 has undergone strict technical
`
`safety reviews of the system designs by professional engineers licensed by numerous states. The
`
`design of the CryoEXS 400 extraction system has been approved by state-certified professional
`
`engineers from more than two dozen states including Washington State and California.
`
`36.
`
`Root Sciences’ imported merchandise has been detained, seized, excluded—and
`
`generally harassed—at numerous ports upon entry into the United States. In each prior instance,
`
`the merchandise was imported at U.S. ports of entry located within states that have enacted laws
`
`that unquestionably trigger the federal authorization exemption of 21 U.S.C. § 863(f)(1).
`
`37.
`
`The instant exclusion is unlawful and disregards the clear intent of Congress which
`
`seeks to recognize State laws governing merchandise meeting the federal definition of “drug
`
`paraphernalia.” See 21 U.S.C. § 863(d).
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00123-GSK Document 15 Filed 03/24/21 Page 13 of 16
`
`38.
`
`Defendant wrongfully excluded the Subject Merchandise from entry, and the
`
`deemed denial of Root Sciences’ Protest against the exclusion must be overturned.
`
`39.
`
`Furthermore, 19 U.S.C. § 1499(c)(5)(C), which is the best evidence of its contents,
`
`provides:
`
`Notwithstanding section 2639 of title 28, once an action respecting a detention is
`commenced, unless the Customs Service establishes by a preponderance of the
`evidence that an admissibility decision has not been reached for good cause, the
`court shall grant the appropriate relief which may include, but is not limited to, an
`order to cancel the detention and release the merchandise.
`
`40.
`
`There are no outstanding requests from CBP for information or other data regarding
`
`the subject merchandise which provides CBP good cause for not having made a determination
`
`regarding the admissibility of the subject merchandise, despite having had three (3) months to do
`
`so.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court direct defendant to show cause why it has
`
`not made a determination of admissibility regarding the subject merchandise; enter judgment in
`
`plaintiff’s favor, and direct Defendant to allow the entry of the Subject Merchandise; and further
`
`that the Court award Plaintiff costs of suit plus attorneys’ fees; and to provide Plaintiff with such
`
`other and further relief as this Court may deem just.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00123-GSK Document 15 Filed 03/24/21 Page 14 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 24, 2021
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`NEVILLE PETERSON LLP
`
`
`/s/ Richard F. O’Neill
` Richard F. O’Neill
`999 Third Ave., Ste. 2525
`Seattle, WA 98104
`(206) 518-9335
`roneill@npwny.com
`
`/s/ John M. Peterson
`
`John M. Peterson
`Patrick B. Klein
`One Exchange Plaza
`55 Broadway, Suite 2602
`New York, NY 10006
`(212) 635-2730
`jpeterson@npwny.com
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00123-GSK Document 15 Filed 03/24/21 Page 15 of 16
`
`COMPLAINT EXHIBIT LIST
`
`A
`
`
`
`
`
`Compl. Ex. Description
`
`Exclusion Protest and Memorandum of Points and Authorities
`in Support of Protest
`
`Protest Ex. A: CBP Notice of Detention (April 10, 2020)
`
`Protest Ex. B: CF 7501, Entry No. F23-9253382-4
`
`Protest Ex. C: CryoEXS400 Product Brochure
`
`Protest Ex. D: CryoEXS400 Engineer Report, Pressure Safety
`Inspectors, Technical Report No. 201910008, Rev. 0
`(August 20, 2020)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Confidential?
`
`No
`
`No
`
`Yes
`
`No
`
`No
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00123-GSK Document 15 Filed 03/24/21 Page 16 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
`
`
` --------------------------------------------------------------------- X
`ROOT SCIENCES, LLC
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`THE UNITED STATES
`:
`
`:
`Defendant.
`
`
`:
`
` --------------------------------------------------------------------- X
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`No. 21-00123
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that I caused a copy of the foregoing COMPLAINT to be served by
`
`CM/ECF upon the following persons on this 24th day of March, 2021:
`
`DEFENDANT, THE UNITED STATES
`Attorney-in-charge
`International Trade Field Office
`Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division
`Room 346
`U.S. Department of Justice,
`26 Federal Plaza, Ste. 346
`New York, New York 10278
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Patrick B. Klein
`Patrick B. Klein
`Neville Peterson LLP
`
`