Trade Court Says CBP Failed to Adequately Explain Forced Labor Finding on Extrusions Exporter
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.
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.
The Forced Labor Division of CBP's Trade Remedy Law Enforcement Directorate opened the investigation after the agency conducted an on-site verification of Kingtom's manufacturing facilities during an antidumping duty and countervailing duty evasion proceeding. The Forced Labor Division alleged there was "sufficient evidence that forced labor was being used" to make Kingtom's products bound for the U.S., leading CBP to issue a final finding of forced labor.
Reif rejected the agency's conclusion, finding it to lack adequate explanation. The judge noted that the only support for CBP's determination is one statement, which says CBP has determined through its investigation that there's "sufficient information to support a Finding that Kingtom Aluminio S.R.L. is using convict, forced, or indentured labor in a factory in the Dominican Republic to produce or manufacture in whole or in part aluminum extrusions and profile products and derivatives."
The court noted that the forced labor finding doesn't "cite to documents in the administrative record, nor does it describe the circumstances of the investigation in any detail." Instead, the finding "consists largely of a barebones recitation of the statute and Customs’ regulations thereunder."
The judge likened the case to Ninestar v. U.S., in which Chinese exporter Ninestar challenged its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. In that case, Judge Gary Katzmann said an agency's "conclusory recitation of the statute without further explanation plainly fails the APA’s arbitrary and capricious standard." However, Katzmann said the listing decision could be sustained if the link between the facts and each element of the UFLPA listing is either expressly discussed or "reasonably discerned" from the public record.
Katzmann then said the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force adequately explained its decision based on the public record provided by the task force during litigation. The first two pages of the record included a memorandum from the Department of Homeland Security explaining that the listing decision was "based on an allegation from an informant" and documents from the Chinese government, Ninestar and various media reports.
Noting Katzmann's rationale, Reif turned to the "heavily redacted" public record in Kingtom's case.
While the record has "several internal memoranda" discussing the forced labor finding, "none of them comes close to matching the level of detail of the internal memorandum that passed muster in Ninestar," the judge said. The most detailed is an "internal communication between the executive director of TRLED to the Executive Assistant Commissioner of the Office of Trade," though the document only provides a summary of TRLED's process, "with no substantive information," coupled with one conclusory sentence.
This sentence says the Forced Labor Division gathered information from partner agencies, civil society groups and news organizations and determined there's "probable cause" that Kingtom uses forced labor. Reif said this communication is "readily distinguishable" from the statements in Ninestar, since FLETF provided a "brief description of the specific facts on which the forced labor allegations were based" and thus "avoided the kinds of conclusory, unsupported allegations that characterize the" record here.
Reif added that the Forced Labor Division's allegation is "insufficient as well." While the allegation describes the labor conditions at Kingtom's facility, it predates the forced labor investigation itself and doesn't specifically allege the existence of forced labor.
Brady Mills, counsel for Kingtom, said in an email that "Kingtom is very pleased with the decision and the remedy of vacatur of the forced labor finding."
(Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, Slip Op. 25-125, CIT # 24-00264, dated 09/23/25; Judge: Timothy Reif; Attorneys: Brady Mills of Morris Manning for plaintiff Kingtom Aluminio; Christopher Berridge for defendant U.S. government; Robert DeFrancesco of Wiley Rein for defendant-intervenors Aluminum Extruders Council and United Steelworkers)