The Court of International Trade on Nov. 4 granted importer Camel Energy's motion to expedite its case against CBP's detention of two of its battery entries. Judge Claire Kelly, who was assigned to the case on Oct. 29, granted the motion to expedite and said that Camel Energy "may file a proposed briefing schedule" along with a "brief statement of reasons as to why this expedited timeframe is necessary" by Nov. 5 at 4 p.m. ET (Camel Energy v. United States, CIT # 25-00230).
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.
Battery importer Camel Energy urged the Court of International Trade on Oct. 29 to expedite its case on CBP's exclusion of two of its entries. The company said "good cause" exists to speed up the case, since the importer "continues to incur damages in port and storage fees" and the exclusion of the goods "prevented Camel’s North American customers from receiving their products" (Camel Energy v. United States, CIT # 25-00230).
CBP unlawfully excluded two entries of Camel Energy's battery imports for being made with forced labor in China's Xinjiang province, Camel Energy argued in a complaint at the Court of International Trade. The importer said it's not on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List, and the batteries in its entries weren't "mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part using forced labor in the" Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) (Camel Energy v. United States, CIT # 25-00230).
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.
Exporter Camel Group filed its motion for judgment against the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force's decision not to remove the company from the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, arguing that the decision wasn't backed by substantial evidence or supported by a reasoned explanation. Camel said FLETF used the wrong standard of review in assessing its petition for removal from the UFLPA Entity List, arguing that the task force should have used a "preponderance of the evidence" standard instead of a "reasonable cause to believe" standard" (Camel Group v. United States, CIT # 25-00022).
CBP failed to explain its finding that Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio made its aluminum extrusions with forced labor, the Court of International Trade held on Sept. 23. Vacating and remanding the forced labor finding, Judge Timothy Reif said the agency failed to "articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action” based on a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made" in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act's arbitrary and capricious standard.
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 23 remanded CBP's finding that Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio made its aluminum extrusions using forced labor. Judge Timothy Reif held that CBP failed to "articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action" based on a "rational connection between the facts found and the choice made" in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Reif likened the case to the court's previous consideration of a company's challenge to its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. The judge said CBP's "conclusory, unsupported allegations" of forced labor made with regards to Kingtom are "readily distinguishable" from the "substantive statements" made in defense of the UFLPA Entity List addition.
The U.S. said on Sept. 17 it doesn't oppose Chinese exporter Ninestar's motion to amend its complaint in its case against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, though the government said it "reserves its right to move to dismiss one or both additional counts" in the amended complaint (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
Exporter Camel Group defended its motion to unredact and re-designate part of the administrative record in its case against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, arguing on July 18 that the government won't suffer harm if Camel Group's lawyers can share the documents with the company. The exporter claimed that the government's interest in shielding the documents is "tarnished by continued inconsistencies in its designation" (Camel Group Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00022).