CBP Allows for Release of Non-Cotton Goods From Second Detained Uniqlo Shipment
CBP allowed for the release of some styles of men's shirts imported by Uniqlo that were detained over the suspected use of cotton from the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps in China because the shirts were not made of cotton, the agency said in a May 18 ruling. The ruling, HQ H318835, discloses that CBP detained a second Uniqlo shipment over a possible XPCC connection. The first detention was mentioned in another recent ruling, in which CBP said Uniqlo hadn't sufficiently shown XPCC cotton wasn't used (see 2105130031). The ruling wasn't available on the CBP rulings database as of press time May 20.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Both detentions occurred at the Port of Lost Angeles/Long Beach. CBP stopped the second shipment Jan. 11, six days after the first shipment. Following a CBP notice to Uniqlo that said the agency would exclude the shipment, the company filed a protest and said six of the seven styles aren't made of cotton. “As such, these six styles were wrongfully detained under a [withhold release order] WRO that, by its very terms, covers certain 'Cotton and Cotton Products,'” the company told CBP. “These six styles should be released as they are plainly not covered by the WRO.”
CBP agreed with Uniqlo about the six styles. “Upon review of the record, we conclude that Uniqlo has provided evidence to sufficiently establish” that the six styles “were not subject to the WRO because they were made of polyester and other man-made materials, not cotton,” CBP said.
The cotton from the seventh style “did not originate from XPCC or, for that matter, from China at all,” the company told CBP. “Rather, the raw cotton from which the garment was made originated in the United States.” But, CBP found Uniqlo's submissions to be insufficient to show forced labor wasn't used. “Although Uniqlo has provided evidence relating to the sale, acquisition, source location, transportation, and delivery of the raw cotton used to produce the subject cotton garments,” it hasn't “provided any probative evidence to establish that the imported cotton garments were not produced in part by forced labor within the XPCC,” CBP said. The company didn't respond to a request for comment.