US Inconsistently Designates Docs in UFLPA Entity List Case, Exporter Says
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).
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.
Camel Group is a large manufacturing company, producing over 400 different products, that established two affiliates -- Camel Group Xinjiang Renewable Resources Co. and Camel Group Xinjiang Storage Battery Co. -- in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) in 2015 and 2017. However, the company said neither of its Xinjiang affiliates ships products to the U.S.
The exporter challenged its addition to the UFLPA Entity List in January, arguing that the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force "utterly disregarded, ignored and trampled" its due process rights in a "flawed and poorly executed process" (see 2501210052). The company then asked the trade court to undertake an in camera review of the record and order the U.S. to unredact and re-designate the record.
The U.S. filed two versions of the record, one labeled "Confidential," which has information only accessible by Camel Group's attorneys, and one marked "Camel Confidential," which certain Camel Group representatives can access. The government opposed Camel Group's bid to re-designate part of the record, arguing that the documents subject to the exporter's motion are all "open-source documents over which the" Chinese government "exerts control" (see 2507110041).
In response to the government's claims, Camel Group said the harm FLETF claimed it will suffer if the documents are made available to the company "are entirely speculative and based on hypothetical actions that it alleges may occur under Chinese law if the documents are re-designated."
Camel Group added that the government's interest in the documents doesn't stand up to scrutiny given inconsistencies in how it designates certain documents. The exporter said the government's policy seemingly is that a document should be labeled "Confidential" if it's a China-origin document and FLETF relied on it in its decision. "Based on this logic, a document like the WeChat Article" used by FLETF "should have been marked 'Confidential' as it is a PRC-origin document and the FLETF clearly relied on it for its decision," yet the U.S. designated it "Public," the brief said.
While the government said it designated the WeChat article "Public," since the document was cited and separately disclosed in another non-Chinese origin document, this same fact pattern applies to many other documents that are currently labeled "Confidential," Camel Group noted.
The U.S. said that only eight of the documents on the record are labeled "Confidential," while most of the record is public, indicating this shouldn't impede Camel Group's ability to litigate the case, the brief said. "This clearly cannot be the standard for matters as important as the one before this Court. Not only does it ignore the reality that the Government has kept secret from the public the very evidence that shows the FLETF’s case against Camel Group was weak, but it creates the perception that these documents have some greater importance," as they did in another case on a UFLPA Entity List challenge, "but not here," Camel Group argued.
The exporter added that not being able to review the eight documents will put the company "at a significant disadvantage in this litigation," making the fact that most of the record is public "irrelevant."
Lastly, Camel Group said the government mischaracterizes Chinese law. The U.S. defended its protection of the documents on the basis that China’s 2021 Data Security Law and its 2021 Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law would compel disclosure of the documents to the Chinese government if shared with Camel Group. Camel Group said the U.S. "provides no citation to any of the PRC laws it refers to and it provides no legal basis under Chinese law that would require Camel Group to provide documents to the PRC government without such a specific, formal request."