Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-03-05161/USCOURTS-caDC-03-05161-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 

---

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

Federal Reporter or U.S.App.D.C. Reports. Users are requested to notify

the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be made

before the bound volumes go to press.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued March 12, 2004 Decided April 30, 2004

No. 03-5161

CASTLEWOOD PRODUCTS, L.L.C., ET AL.,

APPELLEES

INTERFOREST CORP., ET AL.,

APPELLANTS

v.

GALE A. NORTON,

IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS

SECRETARY OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, ET AL.,

APPELLEES

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 02cv01457)

Patrick D. Traylor argued the cause for appellants. With

him on the briefs was James T. Banks.

 Bills of costs must be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment.

The court looks with disfavor upon motions to file bills of costs out

of time.

USCA Case #03-5161 Document #819589 Filed: 04/30/2004 Page 1 of 16
2

Charles W. Scarborough, Attorney, U.S. Department of

Justice, argued the cause for federal appellees. With him on

the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,

Roscoe C. Howard, Jr., U.S. Attorney, and Mark B. Stern,

Attorney.

William J. Snape III and William Carroll Muffett were on

the brief for amici curiae Defenders of Wildlife, et al. in

support of appellees.

Before: EDWARDS and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges, and

WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge EDWARDS.

EDWARDS, Circuit Judge: This case concerns the United

States’ detention of several shipments of bigleaf mahogany

from Brazil. The United States and Brazil are both signatories to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Mar. 3, 1973, 27 U.S.T. 1087

(‘‘CITES’’ or ‘‘Convention’’). The Convention governs trade in

endangered species that are listed in its appendices. Article

V provides that an export permit for species included in

Appendix III can be granted by the exporting country only

when, inter alia, the designated Management Authority of

the exporting country is satisfied that the specimen was not

obtained in contravention of its laws. CITES, art. V(2)(a), 27

U.S.T. at 1097. Brazil has included bigleaf mahogany in

Appendix III. In the United States, the Endangered Species

Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-44 (2000) (‘‘ESA’’), prohibits trade in

violation of the Convention and authorizes the Secretary of

the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to enforce the

ESA.

This case arose when the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (‘‘APHIS’’) of the United States Department of

Agriculture (‘‘USDA’’) refused entry at U.S. ports to certain

shipments of bigleaf mahogany after Brazil’s Management

Authority gave information to the United States Department

of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service (‘‘FWS’’) suggesting that the specimens in the shipments were not legally

obtained. On July 23, 2002, Castlewood Products, L.L.C.,

USCA Case #03-5161 Document #819589 Filed: 04/30/2004 Page 2 of 16
3

Interforest Corp., M. Bohlke Veneer Corp., Marwood, Inc.,

United Veneer, L.L.C., Veneer Technologies, Inc., and Aljoma Lumber, Inc., the U.S. corporate consignees of the disputed shipments, brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to compel delivery of

the shipments. The plaintiffs claimed that, because the export permits accompanying the shipments were signed and

issued by Brazil’s Management Authority, APHIS’s detention

of the shipments was arbitrary and capricious. The District

Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment

and granted summary judgment to the Government, holding

that the decision to detain the shipments was authorized by

treaty, statute, and regulation. Castlewood Prods. v. Norton,

264 F. Supp. 2d 9, 14 (D.D.C. 2003). Interforest, Marwood,

Veneer Technologies, and Aljoma Lumber appealed and we

now affirm the judgment of the District Court.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Regulatory Background

The Convention governs the import and export of certain

species of endangered fauna and flora that are listed in its

appendices. This case concerns bigleaf mahogany, which

Brazil has included in Appendix III. Article V of CITES

provides that the export of any species listed in Appendix III

requires ‘‘the prior grant and presentation of an export

permit.’’ CITES, art. V(2), 27 U.S.T. at 1097. That article

provides:

An export permit shall only be granted when the

following conditions have been met:

(a) a Management Authority of the State of export

is satisfied that the specimen was not obtained in

contravention of the laws of that State for the protection of fauna and flora;

(b) a Management Authority of the State of export

is satisfied that any living specimen will be so preUSCA Case #03-5161 Document #819589 Filed: 04/30/2004 Page 3 of 16
4

pared and shipped as to minimize the risk of injury,

damage to health or cruel treatment.

Id.

A Management Authority is designated by each state to

‘‘grant permits or certificates on behalf of that Party.’’ Id.,

art. IX(1)(a), 27 U.S.T. at 1103. The United States has

designated the Secretary of the Interior as the CITES Management Authority, and the Secretary’s functions in this

capacity are carried out through FWS. See 16 U.S.C.

§ 1537a(a). In Brazil, the Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renovaveis or the Brazilian

Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (also known as ‘‘IBAMA’’) is the Management Authority under CITES.

Article VIII of the Convention provides:

(1) The Parties shall take appropriate measures to

enforce the provisions of the present Convention and

to prohibit trade in specimens in violation thereof.

These shall include measures:

(a) to penalize trade in, or possession of, such

specimens, or both; and

(b) to provide for the confiscation or return to

the State of export of such specimens.

CITES, art. VIII(1)(a), 27 U.S.T. at 1101. Article XIV makes

it clear that the Convention does not purport to limit the

right of the Parties to adopt ‘‘stricter domestic measures

regarding the conditions for trade, taking possession or transport of specimens of species included in Appendices I, II, and

III, or complete prohibition thereofTTTT’’ Id., art. XIV(1)(a),

27 U.S.T. at 1108.

Article XI provides for regular meetings of the Parties to

the Convention, at which they may, inter alia, ‘‘make recommendations for improving the effectiveness of the present

Convention.’’ Id., art. XI(3)(e), 27 U.S.T. at 1105. These

recommendations, adopted through resolutions, are intended

to give guidance to the Parties in implementing the Convention. Since ratification, the Parties have adopted two resoluUSCA Case #03-5161 Document #819589 Filed: 04/30/2004 Page 4 of 16
5

tions recommending specific measures to strengthen enforcement of the Convention. One, Resolution 11.3, recommends

that,

(c) if an importing country has reason to believe

that an Appendix-II or -III species is traded in

contravention of the laws of any country involved in

the transaction, it:

(i) immediately inform the country whose laws

were thought to have been violated and, to the

extent possible, provide that country with copies

of all documentation relating to the transaction;

and

(ii) where possible, apply stricter domestic measures to that transaction as provided for in

Article XIV of the Convention.

CITES, Resolution 11.3 (2000). The other, Resolution 12.3,

recommends that ‘‘the Parties refuse to accept any permit or

certificate that is invalid, including authentic documents that

do not contain all the required information TTT or that contain

information that brings into question the validity of the

permit or certificate.’’ CITES Resolution 12.3 § XIV(d)

(2002) (recalling and incorporating CITES Resolution 10.2

§ II(h) (1997)).

Congress implemented the Convention into U.S. law in the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-205, 87 Stat.

884 (codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-44 (2000)).

The ESA makes it unlawful to ‘‘engage in any trade in any

specimens contrary to the provisions of the Convention.’’ 16

U.S.C. § 1538(c)(1). It provides that any fish, wildlife or

plants possessed or transferred in violation of the ESA or its

regulations ‘‘shall be subject to forfeiture to the United

States.’’ 16 U.S.C. § 1540(e)(4)(A). The Secretary of the

Interior is authorized to promulgate regulations as may be

appropriate to enforce the ESA. 16 U.S.C. § 1540(f). The

statute also provides for the coordination of the administration of the ESA between the Secretary of Agriculture and the

Secretary of the Interior. 16 U.S.C. § 1540(h). FWS and

APHIS work together to enforce the provisions of CITES.

USCA Case #03-5161 Document #819589 Filed: 04/30/2004 Page 5 of 16
6

The Department of the Interior has promulgated regulations to implement the ESA. See 50 C.F.R. pt. 23 (2003).

One regulation provides: ‘‘In order to import into the United

States any wildlife or plant listed in appendix III from a

foreign country that has listed such animal or plant in appendix III, a valid foreign export permit or re-export certificate

issued by such country must be obtained prior to such

importation.’’ 50 C.F.R. § 23.12(a)(3)(i). Another regulation

states: ‘‘Only export permits, re-export certificates, certificates of origin, or other certificates issued and signed by a

management authority will be accepted as a valid foreign

document from a country that is a party to the Convention.’’

50 C.F.R. § 23.14(a).

B. Factual Background

The facts are largely undisputed. In the fall of 2001, FWS

and APHIS learned that the Brazilian government had imposed a moratorium on the logging, transport, and export of

bigleaf mahogany timber. In February 2002, APHIS placed

holds on shipments of bigleaf mahogany from Brazil. FWS

sent a letter to IBAMA, noting that ‘‘none of the permits

accompanying the shipments were endorsed TTT by the export inspection authorities in Brazil,’’ and stating that USDA

was detaining the shipments until officials in the United

States could gain ‘‘verification of the validity of accompanying

CITES permits.’’ See Letter from Mark Albert, Branch of

CITES Operations, FWS, to IBAMA of 2/15/02, Joint Appendix (‘‘J.A.’’) 203-04. IBAMA informed FWS that recent shipments of bigleaf mahogany arriving in the United States from

Brazil were accompanied by export permits that IBAMA had

issued pursuant to preliminary judicial injunctions. IBAMA

stated that its issuance of these permits did not reflect its

independent judgment that the mahogany had been obtained

lawfully. See Letter from Antonio Carlos R. Lins, Head of

International Cooperation, IBAMA, to Dr. Peter O. Thomas,

Chief, Division of Management Authority, FWS of 2/21/02,

Supplemental Appendix 1-2.

IBAMA informed FWS that it had appealed these decisions, the merits of which were pending. IBAMA pointed out

USCA Case #03-5161 Document #819589 Filed: 04/30/2004 Page 6 of 16
7

that one injunction had been reversed, and that it was confident that ‘‘in the appeals, the second instance judges will

probably follow the same guide, since the injunctions were

being provided ‘in audita altera parte’ (latin term to express

‘without hearing the other part’)TTTT’’ Id. at 2. The letter

noted that bigleaf mahogany trade had ceased by law in

Brazil, with an exception for certified timber. It also acknowledged that bigleaf mahogany continued to be logged

illegally. See id. FWS and IBAMA had a similar exchange

about two other shipments of mahogany in March 2002. See

Letter from Andrea Gaski, Chief, Branch of CITES Operations, FWS, to IBAMA of 3/12/02, J.A. 212-13; Letter from

Aleksandro Cavalcanti Sitonio, Attorney General (Substitute),

IBAMA, to Gaski of 3/12/02, J.A. 216-18. FWS then received

letters from Randolf Zachow, an IBAMA official, confirming

the validity of some of the permits in question, and questioning the validity of the ban on the harvesting of mahogany.

Letter from Randolf Zachow, IBAMA, to Gaski of 3/26/02,

J.A. 219; Letter from Zachow to Gaski of 4/4/02, J.A. 220;

Letter from Zachow to Thomas of 4/25/02, J.A. 222-25.

On May 2, 2002, the President of IBAMA, Rˆomulo Jos ́e

Fernandes Barreto Mello, sent a letter to FWS invalidating

Zachow’s statements. Mello informed FWS that Zachow’s

letters did not express the point of view of the Brazilian

government or IBAMA, and that Zachow had since been

dismissed from his post. Letter from Mello to Thomas of

5/2/02, J.A. 227-29. Mello’s letter also stated that IBAMA’s

law enforcement officials and technicians would determine the

entire wood chain of custody for bigleaf mahogany from the

forests and the trading companies in 2000 and 2001. The

study would take into account the diminished volume of

mahogany resulting from exports prior to the October 2001

ban. This was intended to determine the balance of sawn

wood that could have been commercialized after the ban, and

would therefore determine how much bigleaf mahogany came

from a legal and known origin. See id. at 228-29.

In a letter dated May 22, 2002, Mello clarified IBAMA’s

position regarding the permits issued pursuant to judicial

command. He wrote that IBAMA ‘‘must not say that a

USCA Case #03-5161 Document #819589 Filed: 04/30/2004 Page 7 of 16
8

judicial decision is not legal or not valid.’’ Letter from Mello

to Thomas of 5/22/02, J.A. 234. Mello stated further that ‘‘it

has never been mentioned that CITES permits were not legal

or not valid.’’ Id. However, Mello also noted that ‘‘the

controls available nowadays at IBAMA do not allow us to

state exactly the legality of each particular shipment.’’ Id. at

235. The letter provided survey data indicating that shipments of mahogany up to a certain volume had legal origin,

but that ‘‘the legal origin of such exceeding volume is not

confirmed by IBAMA, as required in Article V, paragraph

2(a) of the Convention.’’ Id., J.A. 236.

Subsequently, IBAMA presented tables to the CITES Secretariat showing the total volume of legally harvested timber

by exporter. See Letter from Mello to John M. Sellar, Senior

Enforcement Officer, CITES Secretariat of 6/3/02, J.A. 238-

42. On June 20, 2002, APHIS released five shipments of

bigleaf mahogany for which IBAMA had identified the origin

and chain of custody. See APHIS News, USDA Releases

Hold on Selected Bigleaf Mahogany From Brazil (June 20,

2002), J.A. 245. However, APHIS continued to detain other

shipments of bigleaf mahogany.

On July 23, 2002, the plaintiffs commenced this action in

the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

to compel the delivery of the mahogany shipments that were

still being detained. They filed a complaint for injunctive and

declaratory relief against APHIS, FWS, Gale A. Norton, in

her official capacity as the Secretary of the Interior, Steven

A. Williams, in his official capacity as the Director of FWS,

Ann M. Veneman, in her official capacity as the Secretary of

Agriculture, and Craig A. Reed, in his official capacity as

Administrator of APHIS. The plaintiffs argued that, pursuant to the ESA and its implementing regulations, APHIS is

required to validate a shipment for import upon presentment

of all documentation required by the implementing regulations, and that a valid foreign export permit is the only

document from the exporting country that is required under

the Convention. See Compl. for Injunctive and Declaratory

Relief ¶ ¶ 41-42, J.A. 23-24.

USCA Case #03-5161 Document #819589 Filed: 04/30/2004 Page 8 of 16
9

On January 23, 2003, APHIS entered a Memorandum for

the Record ‘‘to document the decision of the U.S. Department

of Agriculture (USDA) to refuse entry into the United States

of certain shipments of bigleaf mahogany lumber and veneers

that the Convention on International Trade in Endangered

Species (CITES) management authority of Brazil (known as

IBAMA) has been unable to confirm originated from legal

sources.’’ USDA, Memorandum for the Record, January 23,

2003, at 1, J.A. 291. The memorandum stated:

IBAMA confirmed that although it had issued the

CITES export permits for the shipments, it had

done so under court injunctions which it was appealing. IBAMA indicated it had not determined whether the mahogany had been legally acquired, which is

a prerequisite to the issuance of a CITES export

permit for this species. For that reason, APHIS

has held those and subsequent mahogany shipments

imported into the United States in order to determine from IBAMA if the mahogany was legally

acquired.

Id. The memorandum explained APHIS’s position that, since

it had the express authority to seize and forfeit articles

traded in violation of the CITES treaty, it also had the

discretion to choose a less drastic action, such as to refuse

entry to a commodity. It pointed out that its action complied

with CITES Resolution 10.2 § II(h), which recommended that

the signatories ‘‘not authorize the import of any specimen if

they have reason to believe that it was not legally acquired in

the country of origin.’’ See USDA, Memorandum for the

Record, January 23, 2003, at 3, J.A. 293 (quoting CITES

Resolution 10.2 § II(h) (1997) (recalled and incorporated into

CITES Resolution 12.3 (2002)).

The parties then filed cross-motions for summary judgment

in the District Court. The District Court determined that the

decision to seize, detain, and confiscate contraband specimens

under the ESA was within the agency’s clear statutory and

regulatory authority. Castlewood Prods., 264 F. Supp. 2d at

12-13. Based on the record before it, the District Court

USCA Case #03-5161 Document #819589 Filed: 04/30/2004 Page 9 of 16
10

found that APHIS and Brazilian officials had agreed to adopt

a ‘‘chronological approach,’’ under which the United States

would allow the release of shipments in chronological order of

shipping, until the total amount released equaled the amount

calculated by IBAMA to be of legal origin. It noted that, ‘‘in

every instance in which IBAMA has confirmed the legality of

a shipment, APHIS has released that shipment.’’ Id. at 14.

The District Court concluded that ‘‘the defendants’ actions

were in all respects authorized by treaty, statute, and regulation, and that the government did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, nor did it abuse its discretion in the matter.’’ Id. at

14. It therefore granted the Government’s motion for summary judgment. Id.

Four of the plaintiffs now appeal the District Court’s

judgment denying their motion for summary judgment and

awarding summary judgment to the Government.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

We review de novo the District Court’s grant of summary

judgment, which means that we review the agency’s decision

on our own. See Lozowski v. Mineta, 292 F.3d 840, 845 (D.C.

Cir. 2002) (‘‘Because the district court entered a summary

judgment, we review its decision de novo and therefore, in

effect, review directly the decision of the Secretary.’’) Under

the applicable provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act,

we must determine whether the agency’s decision is ‘‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in

accordance with law.’’ 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (2000). And, in

the course of our review, ‘‘[w]e must give substantial deference to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations.

Our task is not to decide which among several competing

interpretations best serves the regulatory purpose. Rather,

the agency’s interpretation must be given controlling weight

unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.’’ Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504, 512

(1994) (inner quotations and citations omitted). Thus, ‘‘[w]e

accord an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations a

USCA Case #03-5161 Document #819589 Filed: 04/30/2004 Page 10 of 16
11

‘high level of deference,’ accepting it ‘unless it is plainly

wrong.’ ’’ Gen. Elec. Co. v. EPA, 53 F.3d 1324, 1327 (D.C.

Cir. 1995) (quoting Gen. Carbon Co. v. OSHRC, 860 F.2d 479,

483 (D.C. Cir. 1988)).

B. The Requirement of a ‘‘Valid Foreign Export Permit’’

Appellants challenge the decision by FWS and APHIS to

detain the mahogany shipments as arbitrary and capricious,

claiming that it rests on impermissible interpretations of 50

C.F.R. §§ 23.12(a) and 23.14(a). We find no merit in this

challenge.

Section 23.12(a)(3)(i) provides:

In order to import into the United States any wildlife or plant listed in appendix III from a foreign

country that has listed such animal or plan in appendix III, a valid foreign export permit or re-export

certificate issued by such country must be obtained

prior to such importation.

50 C.F.R. § 23.12(a)(3)(i). APHIS detained the mahogany

shipments at issue here, because, in its representations to

FWS, ‘‘IBAMA indicated it had not determined whether the

mahogany had been legally acquired, which is a prerequisite

to the issuance of a CITES export permit for this species.’’

USDA, Memorandum for the Record, January 23, 2003, at 1,

J.A. 291. This application of the regulation reflects the

Government’s position that a foreign export permit cannot be

‘‘valid’’ under CITES absent an assurance from the exporting

country ‘‘that the specimen was not obtained in contravention

of the laws of that State.’’ See CITES, art. V(2)(a), 27 U.S.T.

at 1097.

Appellants argue that the Government’s interpretation of

§ 23.12(a)(3)(i) is at odds with the plain text of § 23.14(a),

which states:

Only export permits, re-export certificates, certificates of origin, or other certificates issued and

signed by a management authority will be accepted

USCA Case #03-5161 Document #819589 Filed: 04/30/2004 Page 11 of 16
12

as a valid foreign document from a country that is a

party to the Convention.

50 C.F.R. § 23.14(a). Appellants contend that, under

§ 23.14(a), once the Management Authority of the exporting

state has issued an export permit, the permit must be accepted as ‘‘valid’’ by authorities in the United States. In other

words, according to appellants, the plain language of

§ 23.14(a) precludes United States agencies from imposing

other conditions precedent to the import of Appendix III

species. See Appellants’ Br. at 16. This ‘‘plain language’’

argument is plainly wrong.

Section 23.12(a)(3)(i) merely requires a valid foreign export

permit, but it does not specify the conditions that a foreign

export permit must meet in order for U.S. officials to regard

the permit as valid, i.e., to conclude that the exporting

Management Authority was ‘‘satisfied that the specimen was

not obtained in contravention of the laws of that State.’’

CITES, art. V(2)(a), 27 U.S.T. at 1097. Section 23.14(a)

requires that an export permit be issued and signed by the

foreign Management Authority in order be accepted, but it

does not say that these requirements are the only conditions

that an agency may lawfully require before accepting a

permit. Therefore, the language of the regulations is ambiguous as to whether U.S. officials may ‘‘look behind’’ a lawfully

signed and issued export permit to determine whether the

substantive requirements of CITES (i.e., that the Management Authority was satisfied that the specimen was not

obtained unlawfully) had actually been met.

The Supreme Court has held that, ‘‘[i]n situations in which

‘the meaning of [regulatory] language is not free from doubt,’

the reviewing court should give effect to the agency’s interpretation so long as it is ‘reasonable.’ ’’ Martin v. OSHRC,

499 U.S. 144, 150-51 (1991) (quoting Ehlert v. United States,

402 U.S. 99, 105 (1971)). Here, FWS and APHIS read

§ 23.12(a)(3)(i) as allowing U.S. officials to require more than

facial satisfaction of § 23.14(a), at least in cases where the

United States has reason to doubt whether the export permits in question were issued in compliance with CITES. The

USCA Case #03-5161 Document #819589 Filed: 04/30/2004 Page 12 of 16
13

regulations were promulgated pursuant to the Secretary of

the Interior’s clear statutory authority under the ESA to

‘‘promulgate such regulations as may be appropriate to enforce’’ the ESA. See 16 U.S.C. § 1540(f). The ESA makes it

‘‘unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the

United States to engage in any trade in any specimens

contrary to the provisions of the Convention, or to possess

any specimens traded contrary to the provisions of the Convention.’’ 16 U.S.C. § 1538(c)(1). And, the stated purpose of

the regulations at 50 C.F.R. pt. 23 is to ‘‘implement the

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of

Wild Fauna and Flora.’’ 50 C.F.R. § 23.1(a).

In light of these statutory and regulatory provisions, the

Government acted reasonably in requiring more than facial

satisfaction of § 23.14(a) when determining whether an export permit is ‘‘valid’’ (i.e., issued in compliance with CITES)

under § 23.12(a)(3)(i). The regulations were promulgated to

implement the ESA, which was itself passed, in part, to

implement the Convention. The ESA specifically prohibits

trade contrary to the provisions of the Convention, 16 U.S.C.

§ 1538(c), and provides that any specimens that are imported

in violation of the ESA are subject to forfeiture to the United

States, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(e)(4)(A). The Convention requires

that an export permit for an Appendix III species shall only

be granted when ‘‘a Management Authority of the State of

export is satisfied that the specimen was not obtained in

contravention of the laws of that State for the protection of

fauna and flora.’’ CITES, art. V(2)(a), 27 U.S.T. at 1097.

Furthermore, Article XI provides for regular meetings of

the Parties to the Convention, at which they may, inter alia,

‘‘make recommendations for improving the effectiveness of

the present Convention.’’ Id., art. XI(3)(e), 27 U.S.T. at 1105.

These recommendations, adopted through resolutions, are

intended to give guidance to the Parties in implementing the

Convention. Resolution 11.3 recommends that, ‘‘if an importing country has reason to believe that an Appendix TTT III

species is traded in contravention of the laws of any country

involved in the transaction, it TTT immediately inform the

country whose laws were thought to have been violated.’’

USCA Case #03-5161 Document #819589 Filed: 04/30/2004 Page 13 of 16
14

CITES Resolution 11.3 (2000). And Resolution 12.3 recommends that ‘‘the Parties refuse to accept any permit or

certificate that is invalid, including authentic documents that

do not contain all the required information TTT or that contain

information that brings into question the validity of the

permit or certificate.’’ CITES Resolution 12.3 § XIV(d)

(2002) (repealing and incorporating CITES Resolution 10.2

§ II(h) (1997)).

These provisions, taken together, make it clear that the

agencies’ interpretation of the applicable regulations is perfectly reasonable. It is also clear here that, to date, there are

no ‘‘valid’’ export permits for the disputed shipments. There

is no dispute that Brazil’s Management Authority questioned

whether the goods in the disputed shipments were obtained

legally. The United States thus had a reasonable basis for

inquiring further and detaining the shipments until a finding

of legal acquisition could be made.

Appellants argue, and the Government does not dispute,

that the CITES resolutions are merely recommendations to

the Parties and, therefore, they are not binding on the United

States. See Appellants’ Br. at 22. This does not render the

resolutions meaningless, however. There would be no point

in the contracting states agreeing on resolutions only to then

completely ignore them. Therefore, while not binding, it was

surely reasonable for FWS and APHIS to look to the CITES

resolutions for guidance in interpreting the regulations implementing CITES.

Furthermore, appellants’ claim that they did not have

notice of the Government’s interpretation is meritless. It is

clear from the text of the Convention that signatories may

only issue export permits for Appendix III goods upon determining that they were legally obtained, so appellants can

claim no surprise or confusion over this.

We also reject appellants’ argument that the decision by a

Brazilian federal court in Bianchini E Serafim LTDA v.

IBAMA, Writ of Mandamus No. 2002.001437-0 (10th Fed.

Dist. Ct. of Curitiba, June 28, 2002), J.A. 262-65 (trans.

Berlitz GlobalNet, J.A. 253-61), compels reversal in this case.

USCA Case #03-5161 Document #819589 Filed: 04/30/2004 Page 14 of 16
15

See Appellants’ Reply Br. at 12. The decision in Bianchini

has no bearing on the shipments at issue in this case.

The Government acknowledges that the United States will

release detained shipments when judicial review in a foreign

state concludes that the goods were legally obtained, regardless of whether the foreign Management Authority disagrees

with the judicial decision. There is no serious dispute over

this point. Indeed, the Government followed this precept in

this case in response to the Bianchini decision.

The Brazilian federal district court’s decision in Bianchini

upheld a mandatory injunction directing IBAMA to issue an

export permit for one exporter’s shipment of bigleaf mahogany. The court explained:

It appears that the exploitation of lumber and all

of the subsequent operations were made in a proper

manner and authorized by the autarchy until the

issuance of the challenged [moratorium], which surprised the petitioner who already had the merchandise in its warehouses and had signed contracts for

export. Now, if from the time of the extraction, to

the transport from Par ́a to this state, the merchandise had been handled properly and with the authorization of IBAMA, there could have been no grounds

for suspicion that the lumber might have been extracted improperly

TTT

The fact that the extraction was done properly

prior to suspension of the authorization for exploitation of the mahogany should not now complicate

deals already signed.

Bianchini (trans. Berlitz GlobalNet) at 5, J.A. 256. Following this decision, IBAMA informed FWS that, pursuant to

that final judicial decision, ‘‘such wood was legally acquired

and must be released.’’ Although IBAMA had appealed the

Bianchini decision, IBAMA declared that ‘‘such appeal must

not uphold (impede) its accomplishment.’’ Letter from Mello

to Thomas of 9/26/02, J.A. 281. APHIS then authorized the

release of the shipment at issue in Bianchini. See Letter

from James (Bud) Petit de Mange, CITES and Plant InspecUSCA Case #03-5161 Document #819589 Filed: 04/30/2004 Page 15 of 16
16

tion Station Coordinator, USDA, APHIS, PPQ, to Indira

Singh/Martin Feinstein, PPQ of 10/10/02, J.A. 282.

However, Bianchini does not detract in any way from the

reasonableness of APHIS’s decision to detain other shipments

for which no court or Management Authority has confirmed

legal acquisition. Bianchini held that ‘‘the petitioner purchased, transported, and marketed the lumber before issuance of the restrictive regulation, in other words, with the

permission previously granted by the environmental autarchy

itself.’’ Bianchini (trans. Berlitz GlobalNet) at 6, J.A. 257.

That holding applied only to the wood in the specific shipment at issue in that case. The United States then released

that particular shipment, even though IBAMA appealed the

decision. And, while the appeal was pending, IBAMA acknowledged that the final judicial determination that the

wood was legally acquired meant the wood had to be released.

Therefore, neither the parties nor IBAMA dispute that a final

judicial determination that the goods in a shipment were

legally obtained, upon review of a Management Authority’s

decision to the contrary, amounts to a finding of legal acquisition as required by CITES.

It is undisputed that Bianchini involved a different shipment than those at issue here. In contrast to Bianchini,

there was no final judicial disposition as to the legal acquisition of the wood in the shipments at issue in this case. For

the shipments at issue here, the Brazilian court had issued ex

parte orders requiring IBAMA to issue the export permits.

See Castlewood Prods., 264 F. Supp. 2d at 11. These preliminary injunctions did not purport to find that the mahogany in

the shipments at issue here was legally obtained. Therefore,

APHIS reasonably detained the shipments for want of assurance, either from IBAMA or pursuant to judicial decree, that

the wood in the disputed shipments was legally obtained. In

the absence of a valid export permit for these shipments, the

Government had the authority to detain them.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the

District Court.

USCA Case #03-5161 Document #819589 Filed: 04/30/2004 Page 16 of 16