Rights Group Cites Ninestar in Saying CBP Should Issue WRO on Cote d'Ivoire Cocoa Products
International Rights Advocates said the Court of International Trade's recent decision in Ninestar Corp. v. U.S. "highlights the unreasonableness of CBP's delay in issuing a [withhold release order] against imports of cocoa products made with forced child labor in Cote d'Ivoire" (International Rights Advocates v. U.S., CIT # 23-00165).
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.
In Ninestar, the trade court found that the proper standard of review for Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List additions is the "reasonable cause" to believe standard, which is lower than the "preponderance of the evidence" mark (see 2402290081). The court said this is because the UFLPA was meant to strengthen CBP's withhold release procedure for barring goods made with forced labor from entering the country and the WRO standard demands only reasonable cause.
"In other words, requiring a 'preponderance of the evidence' standard for UFLPA proceedings would have improperly heightened the standard of proof above what is required for Section 307 WROs," International Rights Advocates, an anti-forced labor nonprofit, said in a March 5 notice of supplemental authority.
This decision is relevant to the nonprofit's suit seeking a WRO on cocoa products from Cote d'Ivoire because the evidentiary standard clearly has been met, International Rights Advocates said. To issue the WRO, CBP has to find only "reasonable cause to believe imports are made with forced child labor," not a "preponderance of the evidence."