Anti-forced labor advocacy group International Rights Advocates (IRAdvocates) will appeal a Court of International Trade decision finding it didn't have standing to challenge CBP's inaction in responding to a petition to ban cocoa from Cote d'Ivoire. The trade court said IRAdvocates failed to show that the agency's inaction harmed a "core business or diminished any asset" -- a standard estsablished by the Supreme Court (see 2408080049). Counsel for IRAdvocates said if its claim for standing fails on appeal, it's prepared to refile the case using a party that could hurdle the trade court's understanding of standing, such as a child laborer in West Africa or a U.S. chocolate company that competes with imports made using child labor (see 2408160009) (International Rights Advocates v. Alejandro Mayorkas, CIT # 23-00165).
Forced Labor
CBP is the primary U.S. agency tasked with combating forced labor in international trade. It is the only agency with legal authority to take enforcement action and prevent entry into domestic commerce of goods produced with forced labor. CBP combats forced labor by issuing Withhold Release Orders (WROs) and Findings, and enforcement of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA), and Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). Goods subject to WROs and Findings, UFLPA, and CAATSA status cannot be entered at any ports of the U.S.
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
A plaintiff representing a consumer advocacy group Aug. 16 filed a complaint against the company that sells products under the brand names Oreo, Toblerone and Cadbury chocolate for its use of child labor and poor environmental standards (Tim Gollogly v. Mondelez International, N.D. Ill. # 24-07368).
The U.S. told the Court of International Trade on Aug. 23 that exporter Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry Co. doesn't have statutory or constitutional standing to challenge CBP's denial of the company's request to remove it from a withhold release order (WRO) on silica-based products made by its parent company Hoshine Silicon and its subsidiaries (Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00048).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Last week, the Court of International Trade said anti-forced labor advocacy group International Rights Advocates (IRAdvocates) didn't have standing to challenge CBP's inaction in responding to a petition to ban cocoa from Cote d'Ivoire, alleging that it's harvested by child labor (see 2408080049). Speaking with Trade Law Daily, Terrence Collingsworth, counsel for IRAdvocates, said he intends to appeal the decision but, should that fail, he is ready to bring alternative plaintiffs before the court who may more clearly establish standing.
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 said anti-forced labor advocacy group International Rights Advocates (IRAdvocates) doesn't have standing to challenge CBP's inaction in responding to a petition to ban cocoa from Cote d'Ivoire. Judge Claire Kelly said IRAdvocates failed to show that CBP's inaction "has harmed a core business or diminished any asset."
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 said anti-forced labor advocacy group International Rights Advocates didn't have standing to challenge CBP's inaction on a petition to ban imports of cocoa from Ivory Coast. Judge Claire Kelly said the group hasn't shown that CBP's failure to respond to the petition "harmed a core business or diminished any asset." Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the judge said resources spent trying to compel the agency to act were expenses for advocacy, which can't establish standing.
The Court of International Trade on July 30 stayed Chinese printer cartridge exporter Ninestar Corp.'s lawsuit challenging its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List for four months or until the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force issues a final decision in the exporter's delisting request before the task force (Ninestar Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00182).