## Facts

- U.S. importers sought entry of shipments of Brazilian bigleaf mahogany, a species listed by Brazil in CITES Appendix III.
- Under CITES Appendix III, an export permit may issue only if the exporting country’s Management Authority is satisfied the specimen was not obtained in violation of that country’s laws.
- U.S. agencies (principally APHIS with FWS) enforce CITES through the ESA and implementing regulations at ports of entry.
- Brazil’s Management Authority (IBAMA) provided information indicating it was not assured the mahogany in certain shipments had been legally obtained, and that some export permits were issued under Brazilian court orders.
- APHIS detained multiple shipments on arrival; after further inquiry, it released five shipments where a lawful chain of custody could be established but continued to detain others where legality could not be confirmed by IBAMA or by a final Brazilian judicial decision.
- The importers sued to compel release, arguing that facially valid export permits required admission and that continued detention was arbitrary and capricious.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the government, and several importers appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether CITES, the ESA, and implementing regulations permit U.S. authorities to detain and refuse entry to Appendix III shipments when there is credible evidence the specimens were not legally obtained, despite facially valid foreign export permits.
2. Whether the agencies’ detention decision was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law under the APA.
3. Whether importers lacked adequate notice that U.S. authorities could examine legality beyond the face of foreign export permits.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the government.
- The court held that the detention and refusal of entry were authorized by CITES, the ESA, and implementing regulations.
- The court held that U.S. authorities were not required to accept export permits as conclusive where the exporting country’s Management Authority raised substantial doubts about legal acquisition.
- The court held the agencies’ actions were not arbitrary or capricious given the information received from IBAMA and the agencies’ differentiated treatment of shipments based on confirmable lawful chain of custody.
- The court rejected the notice challenge, finding the legality-of-acquisition condition evident from the treaty framework and domestic implementing law.

## Legal Principles

- For CITES Appendix III specimens, lawful acquisition in the exporting country is a substantive condition of trade, not merely a paperwork requirement.
- U.S. agencies enforcing CITES through the ESA may look beyond the face of foreign export permits when credible information calls into question whether specimens were obtained in violation of the exporting country’s laws.
- CITES permits Parties to adopt and apply more stringent domestic measures to regulate trade in listed species than the minimum measures required by the Convention.
- Under APA review, an agency decision grounded in treaty and statutory authority and supported by record evidence (including targeted release of shipments when legality is confirmed) is not arbitrary or capricious.
- Regulated parties cannot claim lack of notice when the treaty text and implementing regime make legality of acquisition a condition for permissible trade.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the government’s authority to detain and refuse entry to Appendix III mahogany shipments where the exporting country’s Management Authority could not confirm legal acquisition, even though export permits existed, because CITES and the ESA require substantive compliance with legality conditions and the agencies’ evidence-based approach satisfied APA review.


Castlewood Prods., L.L.C. v. Norton, 365 F.3d 1076 (D.C. Cir. 2004)