CBP Forced Labor Enforcement Needs Broad Revamp, AAEI Says
CBP should take an approach to implementing the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act that is different than the current withhold release order regime, the American Association of Exporters and Importers said in comments to DHS. "The solution to forced labor does not lie with seizing goods at time of arrival," the trade group said. "Rather, it lies in timely information about suspected problem parties being shared at the time they are reliably identified."
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Currently, the process "is beset by a lack of transparency and timely sharing of useful information with U.S. importers that could be better leveraged to assist in mitigating the risk of potentially inadmissible imports," the group said. Any new regulatory framework should be "based on objective standards" and "satisfy the basic due process rights of all impacted parties," it said. "The call to action here cannot be the WRO -- but instead -- must be the initiation of an investigation." Comments on the DHS request for input (see 2201210031) are due March 10. The docket is largely filled with anonymous and mass mail submissions so far.
The current approach, "which was undertaken at warp speed," makes for an "unnecessarily and unworkable situation for industry," AAEI said. That's why CBP should use "increased investigation standards to ensure allegations that move to enforcement are reliable, including giving the accused an opportunity to respond," the trade group said. The government must also provide more information about the countries, industries and parties involved well before a WRO is issued, AAEI said. "Waiting until the end of the investigation to do so is too late for that information to be useful to American business. By then, orders for goods have been placed, money has been spent and financial, logistics, and other commitments have been made, which cannot be changed quickly, if at all."
AAEI would like to see an "advanced notice window of 12-months be adopted between sharing a 'reliable allegation' and enforcement action taken on that allegation," it said. This would help resolve the "current process deficit of withholding critical, material supply point information until it is too late to be of any use to companies that routinely value and strive for compliance."
Better guidance from CBP is another "meaningful action" the agency could take, it said. "The pamphlets posted on the CBP website are broad and vague to the point where they are so general as to not qualify as providing informed compliance much less any meaningful assistance." CBP should also use an "informed compliance" period ahead of actual enforcement, because it "is very possible that companies will be seeing the due diligence requirements the day it goes into effect (thus, limited time to prepare)."
AAEI also would like the government's input on how to consider China's Foreign Sanctions Act, "which says that foreign companies found to follow (US) sanctions regimes, such as the UFLPA, against China will be in breach of Chinese law." That law "puts companies in a coordinated compromised position" and "AAEI members would like to understand the government’s response to this policy in addition to receiving guidance."