AAFA Opposes US's Extension of Time to Reply to Request to File Amicus Brief in Forced Labor Case
There isn't a need to grant an extension of time for the U.S. to respond to the American Apparel and Footwear Association's motion to file an amicus brief in a customs case since the Department of Justice hasn't given a reason why there should be an extension, the association said in an Oct. 6 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Also, AAFA argued, there's no reason the brief should not be accepted, and the defendant hasn't offered any reason it would be.
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.
The case was brought by Virtus Nutrition, whose palm oil imports were excluded from entry to the U.S. over forced labor allegations. In August, AAFA attempted to join the case with an amicus brief more broadly criticizing CBP's enforcement of forced labor-related withhold release orders (see 2108260048). The brief has not been accepted at the court yet, with DOJ now moving for a second time for an extension of time to respond to the request to file a brief as amicus curie.
DOJ said it doesn't need to respond to AAFA's motion since a settlement may still be reached between the parties. "At this point, defendant does not have to respond to the brief, and as a result, its motion is premature," AAFA said in response. "If the brief is accepted by the Court and a settlement may be in sight, at that point a motion for an extension of time to respond to the brief would be appropriate. Defendant has simply jumped the gun and not set forth any reason why the brief should not be accepted which would then set in place a response deadline for defendant."