Customs Seizures

[TnA]

ECA, I'm curious to know what your thoughts are on this?

As it stands, a temporary injunction has been put in place to protect SE and NJoy shipments from being seized by US Customs.

On the flip-side, there seems to be a lot of new noises being made by (some) suppliers about their shipments being detained, which may be a sign that FDA and Customs have increased their seizure activities of suppliers' shipments.

Due to this, there have been numerous threads with suppliers talking about taking up similar suit against the FDA to protect their shipments, as well. This would mean suppliers banding together to put up a united front and to pool enough money together to afford the cost of such litigation.

Would be curious to know what the ECA's thoughts/stance/intentions are on this?

[doots]

I think customs can do about what they want and no one can do thing one about it really.. real world politics it seems.

[Webby]

ECA, I'm curious to know what your thoughts are on this?

As it stands, a temporary injunction has been put in place to protect SE and NJoy shipments from being seized by US Customs.

On the flip-side, there seems to be a lot of new noises being made by (some) suppliers about their shipments being detained, which may be a sign that FDA and Customs have increased their seizure activities of suppliers' shipments.

Due to this, there have been numerous threads with suppliers talking about taking up similar suit against the FDA to protect their shipments, as well. This would mean suppliers banding together to put up a united front and to pool enough money together to afford the cost of such litigation.

Would be curious to know what the ECA's thoughts/stance/intentions are on this?

Matt,

I'm admittedly curious as to the ECA's interpretation of the fallout as well. I received 4 "lost"shipments personally, but have heard the same rumblings that only SE and Njoy apply to this (albeit temporary) sheilding. If what Adam calls for in www.vaporoptions.com bears merit (and it seems to have teeth other suppliers need as well) We at CASAA and RtV need to be consolidated on a plan of action.

While we all overlap a bit on "who" we say we protect, the common ground seems overwhelming in this case. Unless I'm mistaken, for consumers to ignore supporting suppliers together in this (and vice/versa) we risk running the same "There's a hole in your side of the boat" mentality that has made us all seem like splinter groups with individual selfrighteous agendas.

What effects any of us invariably effects us all.

[Sun Vaporer]

Webby--IMO, any Supplier that does not Intervene into the SE case is doing themselves a terrible blow.


Sun

[Webby]

Webby--IMO, any Supplier that does not Intervene into the SE case is doing themselves a terrible blow.


Sun

Agreed old friend,

But as individuals? as existing organizations? or as an entirely new consordium of suppliers, large and small. I guess my first question is still what are ECA's intentions on the issue before we jump up and form yet another group - or form mini-cabals to attach ourself to Judge Leon's findings so we don't get left in the cold?

[TnA]

I would ideally like to see a Group of Suppliers in there in a perfect world, but the do to competing interests, what is good for one Supplier, may be detrimental for another. So realistically as individual Suppliers. ECA should hold tight for now when it comes to the Suppilers. Its role should be a Friend of the Court.

Sun

Sun, I'm not sure what exactly you mean. How does an organization that states it's mission to be, ".....an association of private sector companies engaged in electronic cigarette technologies...." be better off as a Friend of the Court versus an advocate in the court?

I understand that it is good to have a political arm/entity at times, but at other times (and this may be one of those times), such entities also need to step up and actually roll up their shirt sleeves and wade in the muck to join the fight.

[Sun Vaporer]

Sun, I'm not sure what exactly you mean. How does an organization that states it's mission to be, ".....an association of private sector companies engaged in electronic cigarette technologies...." be better off as a Friend of the Court versus an advocate in the court?

I understand that it is good to have a political arm/entity at times, but at other times (and this may be one of those times), such entities also need to step up and actually roll up their shirt sleeves and wade in the muck to join the fight.

TnA--It goes to stratagy---Sometimes it is little that does more.


Sun

[Witches'Brew]

Seems to me a good lawyer could argue that the F.D.A interpretation of the injunction , seizing all other shipments except Njoy and SE gives them a decidedly unfair trade advantage against the rest of us.

[TnA]

TnA--It goes to stratagy---Sometimes it is little that does more.


Sun

Sun, being a career military man and a military planner, I can understand strategy. On the other hand, I have no taste for politics and therefore, have never bothered to educate myself on the nuances of it.

In simple laymen's terms, what I cannot understand is an association that bills itself as a voice for the e-cigarette business (and requests money from such businesses) sitting quietly on the sidelines and waiting for said businesses to rally together on their own to fight the good fight.

At a minimum, I would think such an organization would at least lend some expertise, thoughts, opinions, and advice as a minimal form of assistance.

What's the point of leadership if you will not lead?

Now, I will gladly acknowledge that similar concerns have previously been made about ECA's apparent lack of action and ECA eventually came out with some type of action. But during that span of time, the ECA also lent itself to a lot of hypothesizing and criticism. Communication, even the smallest bit, can provide some credibility. I'm not asking for an entire strategic plan. But how about chiming in, for starters?

[Instead]

My name is James Watt. Along with 6 other individuals from member companies, I am on the ECA Board of Directors. I am not a lawyer nor is my opinion legal advice. I have discussed this issue with other suppliers, including ECA members.

Judge Leon was clear that the ruling applied to NJoy and SE. He was also clear that certain claims may entitle the FDA to take action over a particular company. In order for a company to receive the same injunction they would need to enter the case. The ECA is not a supplier so it couldn't enter the case. Nor does the ECA have the necessary funds to do so even it was allowed to enter on behalf of it's members.

A group of suppliers may be able to enter the case together, but each would need to provide evidence that it is obeying current regulations.

Contacting a lawyer as suggested here: vaporoptions.com may be the best course of action for those suppliers who have had products seized.

I caution suppliers who join any such group to ensure the other members are and have been obeying current regulations.

I am not sure how one rouge member would effect the other suppliers in the group, but this is a good question to ask a lawyer.