30-Day Clock Set for Federal Agencies to Decide on Detained Imported Goods

When you import goods—whether lumber, exotic plants, or seafood—the last thing you want is for them to sit indefinitely in a warehouse while the government decides what to do. The Strengthen Wood Product Supply Chains Act of 2025 is looking to fix that regulatory gray area by putting federal enforcement agencies on a very strict timeline when dealing with imports detained under the Lacey Act.

The 30-Day Deadline: Due Process for Imports

This section of the Act, titled "Fair enforcement of Lacey Act Amendments of 1981," is essentially a due process overhaul for importers. If an authorized official detains your imported merchandise—say, a shipment of wood or plants suspected of being illegally sourced—the clock starts ticking immediately. The Secretary (or their agent) has just 5 days to send the importer a formal notice explaining why the goods are detained, what tests they plan to run, and how long they expect the process to take. This is a big win for predictability, forcing transparency right out of the gate.

The most important deadline is the 30-day window from the start of the detention. By Day 30, the government must either release the merchandise or officially seize it. If they miss that deadline, the law treats their inaction as an official seizure anyway. Why does this matter? Because a formal seizure—or the failure to act, which triggers the same result—is the key that unlocks the next step: the right to challenge the decision.

Moving the Merchandise and Running Your Own Tests

If you’re stuck with detained goods, the bill offers a couple of procedural lifelines. First, the importer can request to move the detained goods to a location outside of U.S. control. This is allowed if the importer covers all the storage and waiting fees (demurrage) and posts a bond, provided the Secretary agrees the transfer won’t mess up the purpose of the Act. This provision is designed to help importers manage logistics and costs, but the Secretary’s discretion here—whether the move “won’t stop the purpose of the Act”—is a bit vague and could be a point of friction.

Second, if the government decides to test your product (e.g., DNA testing on wood to verify its species and origin), they must give you enough information to run the same tests yourself. This right to an independent second opinion is crucial for importers, especially those dealing in high-value, perishable goods, ensuring they aren’t relying solely on the government’s findings.

The Path to Court: When Inaction Becomes a Lawsuit

If your goods are seized, you get the right to an administrative review. You ask the Secretary to take a second look, and they have 30 days to either reverse the seizure or confirm it. Again, if they miss this second 30-day deadline, the law treats it as an affirmation of the seizure. This relentless focus on deadlines is designed to prevent cases from languishing in bureaucratic limbo.

Once the seizure is confirmed (either actively or by default), the importer can sue in federal court. Here’s the interesting part: the burden of proof shifts. The judge must grant relief (meaning, order the release of the goods) unless the Secretary can prove they had a “good reason” for failing to make a final decision on time. This is a significant procedural win for importers, making it much harder for enforcement agencies to simply drag their feet and rely on delays. While this adds much-needed clarity for businesses, it puts real pressure on federal agencies, who now have to staff up and streamline their processes to meet these tight, non-negotiable deadlines.