A new Court of International Trade decision clarifies how difficult it may be for a company to secure removal from the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List.
In an August 14 ruling involving battery manufacturer Camel Group Co., Ltd., the court held that the company requesting removal bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it no longer meets, or never met, the applicable statutory listing criteria.
Listing and Removal Apply Different Burdens
The Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force initially places an entity on the UFLPA Entity List when there is reasonable cause to believe the statutory criteria are satisfied. Once listed, however, a company seeking removal is asking the government to change the existing status quo.
The court concluded that the requesting company bears the burden in the removal proceeding. It must provide clear and convincing evidence that it does not meet the relevant UFLPA criteria. That is a significantly more demanding standard than merely raising doubts about the original listing decision.
Successful Entry Reviews Do Not Resolve Entity-Level Risk
Camel Group argued that CBP had previously permitted certain shipments associated with a subsidiary to enter the United States. The court held that those entry-specific determinations did not control whether Camel Group itself should remain on the Entity List.
This distinction matters for importers and suppliers. CBP may evaluate whether a particular shipment is subject to the UFLPA presumption based on the evidence presented for that entry. FLETF’s entity-level inquiry instead focuses on the company’s broader operations and its relationship with labor-transfer programs or the Xinjiang government.
FLETF May Consider New Information
The court also found that FLETF is not limited to the evidence used in the original listing decision. Because the Entity List is intended to be updated over time, the task force may consider newer information submitted by government agencies or by the company requesting removal.
The court declined to vacate Camel Group’s listing but remanded part of the denial for reconsideration. FLETF must submit its remand determination within 45 days of the opinion.
Implications for Importers and Suppliers
- A supplier’s success with one or more shipments does not eliminate entity-level UFLPA exposure.
- Delisting requests require current, comprehensive evidence about labor, recruitment, facilities, ownership, and government relationships.
- Importers should independently screen suppliers and upstream entities rather than relying on prior entry outcomes.
- Due-diligence records should be maintained continuously because FLETF may consider new information.
The decision reinforces the importance of distinguishing shipment admissibility from supplier eligibility. Both require documentation, but they address different questions and operate under different standards.
ASK Alba TM
Contact Alba’s trade experts
Contact the Alba team to review UFLPA screening, supplier documentation, entry-level evidence, and forced-labor compliance procedures.
Source: Court of International Trade opinion in Camel Group Co., Ltd. v. United States
