Kingtom Opposes US Stay Request in Forced Labor Case Due to Government Shutdown
Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio opposed the U.S. government's request to stay the company's lawsuit against CBP pending the lapse in federal appropriations. Kingtom, which is challenging CBP's finding that it made its aluminum extrusions with forced labor, argued that a stay would harm the company and that the U.S. "has made no showing of clear hardship if the stay is denied" (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT # 24-00264).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Last month, the trade court said CBP failed to explain its determination that Kingtom made its products with forced labor, vacating and remanding that finding (see 2509230043). However, the U.S. moved to stay the case in light of the federal government shutdown.
In response, the exporter argued that a stay of this case "would stall Kingtom’s and the Court’s efforts to expedite this proceeding" and "effectively deny Kingtom the relief it is entitled to at this point in the litigation." Since the forced labor finding was made, the company "has endured extraordinary hardship, including the loss of business opportunity, goodwill, and reputation with existing and prospective customers in the United States," Kingtom said. Because nearly all its customers are in the U.S., the "embargo has resulted in Kingtom shuttering its operations, significantly downsizing its workforce, and incurring idle costs during the pendency of this action."
In addition, Kingtom argued that the government hasn't shown it would suffer clear hardship without a stay, since the shutdown doesn't prevent the U.S. from litigating issues on which the court denies a stay. In its "Fiscal Year 2026 Contingency Plan," DOJ has said it will "continue litigating ongoing matters if the court determines that it is necessary despite the lapse in appropriations." The court can "provide legal authorization for Defendant’s attorneys to be excepted for the limited purpose of filing their motion to stay the vacatur in this matter."
While the U.S. has "no control over the lapse in appropriations," it "did have the ability to press this issue previously and failed to do so," since the government never opposed the remedy of vacatur, Kingtom said.