Background
Camel Group Co., Ltd., a Chinese battery-products company, was added in 2023 to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. The Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force listed it under UFLPA section 2(d)(2)(B)(ii), relying in part on information that Camel Group participated in a 2017 handover ceremony connected to a Xinjiang government labor-transfer program.
Camel Group sought removal, submitting certifications, affidavits, employee lists, corporate records, and other documents denying participation in labor-transfer programs. The task force denied the request after concluding that Camel Group had not supplied sufficient credible information and that public information gave the agency reasonable cause to believe the company continued working with local government labor-transfer efforts. Camel Group then sought review under the Court of International Trade’s residual jurisdiction and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that an entity requesting removal from the UFLPA Entity List bears the burden before the agency because it seeks to change the existing state of affairs. The entity must prove by clear and convincing evidence that it does not meet, or no longer meets, the applicable statutory listing criteria. Because the task force’s denial did not clearly apply that framework, the court remanded for reconsideration. It denied Camel Group’s request to vacate the denial, leaving the company’s listing in place during remand.
The court also rejected Camel Group’s interpretation of “out of” the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. It read section 2(d)(2)(B)(ii) as covering, first, entities working with the Xinjiang government regarding forced labor without a geographic-removal requirement and, second, entities working with that government regarding specified persecuted groups moved from Xinjiang to another region. The court further held that entry-specific Customs decisions did not determine Camel Group’s entity-list status, rejected the company’s due-process claims, and ruled that the task force could consider evidence beyond the original listing record when deciding removal.
Key Takeaways
- A company seeking removal from the UFLPA Entity List bears the burden of proof before the task force.
- The company must establish by clear and convincing evidence that it does not meet, or no longer meets, the applicable listing criteria.
- The court remanded without vacatur, required a remand redetermination within 45 days, and left Camel Group on the list in the meantime.
Why It Matters
The decision establishes the Court of International Trade’s first stated framework for reviewing UFLPA Entity List removal requests. Although the task force bears the burden when initially listing an entity, a listed company seeking removal faces the substantially higher clear-and-convincing-evidence standard.
The ruling also confirms that successful treatment of individual shipments does not establish entitlement to company-wide delisting and that the task force may use updated evidence when maintaining the list. Listed entities therefore must develop a comprehensive, current record addressing the statutory entity-level criteria rather than relying solely on favorable Customs decisions involving particular entries.