MEMORANDUM OPINION
TREVOR
N. MCFADDEN, U.S.D.J.
In
2015, Global Tropical Imports and Exports
(“Global”) imported three-horned chameleons,
black-throated monitors, spiny-tailed lizards, and other
reptiles from Tanzania. Federal regulations require valid
permits to import these reptiles. One of Global's permits
was invalid, so the U.S. Department of the Interior (the
“Department”) directed the company to pay a $15,
000 penalty. Global now challenges that fine. Because the
Court finds that the decision to fine Global complied with
applicable laws, it will grant the Defendants summary
judgment.
I.
A.
The
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora (“CITES”) is a multilateral
treaty that seeks to protect plants and animals at risk of
extinction. See 27 U.S.T. 1087 (1973). The United
States is a party to the treaty, and Congress has
incorporated it into domestic law through the Endangered
Species Act (the “ESA”). See 16 U.S.C.
§ 1538(c)(1). 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.” 16 U.S.C. §
1538(c).
The ESA
also authorizes the imposition of fines for violating its
provisions or related regulations:
Any person who knowingly violates, and any person engaged in
business as an importer or exporter of fish, wildlife, or
plants who violates, any provision of this chapter, or . . .
any regulation issued in order to implement [subsections of
the ESA] may be assessed a civil penalty by the Secretary of
not more than $25, 000 for each violation.
16 U.S.C. § 1540(a)(1). Based on this provision and 16
U.S.C. § 1538(c), the Department may impose a fine for
CITES violations.
The
treaty categorizes species into three appendices. Appendix I
covers plants and animals threatened with extinction. CITES
Art. II, 27 U.S.T. at 1092. Appendix II includes species that
may soon become threatened with extinction absent strict
regulations. Id. Appendix III covers species that
member nations identify as requiring protection from
exploitation. Id. The reptiles Global imported are
Appendix II animals. J.A. at 258, ECF No. 24-1.[2]
The
import of any Appendix II species “require[s] the prior
presentation of either an export permit or a re-export
certificate.” CITES Art. IV, 27 U.S.T. at 1096. See
also 50 C.F.R. § 23.20(e) (incorporating the same
requirement). An export permit “is valid only when it
contains . . . [t]he applicant's signature if the CITES
document includes a place for it.” 50 C.F.R. §
23.23(c). See also CITES Art. VI, 27 U.S.T. at 1098
(“An export permit shall contain the information
specified in the model set forth in Appendix IV”);
CITES App. IV, 27 U.S.T. at 1144 (model export permit
requiring the signature of the applicant for the permit).
B.
In
2015, Global imported nearly 200 reptiles from Majoka Venom
Supply (“Majoka”). J.A. at 257-58; 301. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, an agency within the Department,
declined to clear the shipment of reptiles when it arrived at
the airport because “one of the permits (#28981) was
not signed by the exporter, as required by 50 C.F.R. [§]
23.23(c).” J.A. at 258. The agency found that, because
of this missing signature, Global had imported the reptiles
“with an invalid permit and in violation of
CITES.” Id. It noted that the missing
signature violated 50 C.F.R. § 23.23(c) (requiring an
applicant's signature where a CITES document has a place
for it) and 16 U.S.C. § 1538(c)(1) (making it unlawful
to violate the treaty). Id.
Based
on this violation, the agency issued a Notice of Assessment,
fining Global $15, 000. J.A. at 228. The agency explained
that “[c]ommercial respondents, such as [Global], are
held to a strict liability standard under the ESA. Therefore,
whether [Global] knew of or intended to violate the ESA and
CITES are immaterial.” J.A. at 226. It added that
Global “has extensive experience in this area, ”
and that the firm should therefore “know that it is its
responsibility to know the law and properly oversee its
import.” J.A. at 229. Global “should also be
well-versed in the CITES and the ESA, ” the agency
reasoned, “by way of its numerous (49) prior
violations.” Id. These prior violations showed
“not only culpability but a refusal to abide by
serious, longstanding wildlife laws.” Id.
Global
appealed this decision to the Department's Office of
Hearings and Appeals. See J.A. at 182. The company
noted that it “does not dispute there is a missing
‘applicant' signature on CITES permit 28981.”
J.A. at 187. Instead, it argued that Majoka was the
“applicant, ” and that the agency had found
Global liable for Majoka's mistake by relying
impermissibly on a vicarious liability theory. Id.
An
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) rejected this
argument. He found that the ESA makes it “quite clear
that a commercial violator is held to a strict liability
standard for any and all violations, notwithstanding their
source (in this case Majoka).” J.A. at 46. He also
found that Global's “violation is made clear by
another controlling regulation.” Id. This
regulation, 50 C.F.R. § 13.50, states that “any
person holding a permit under this subchapter B assumes all
liability and responsibility for the conduct of any activity
conducted under the authority of such permit.” The ALJ
noted that “[i]t is Global that ‘holds' the
permit. ...