CIT Denies Bid to Reconsider Vacatur of Forced Labor Finding on Dominican Exporter
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 12 denied the government's motion for reconsideration of the trade court's previous decision to vacate CBP's finding that Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio made its aluminum extrusions with forced labor. Although Judge Timothy Reif said he made a mistake of fact in the initial decision, the mistake was a "harmless error," and that no mistake of law was made.
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 September, Reif held that CBP failed to establish a "rational connection between the facts found and the choice made" to label Kingtom as making its goods with forced labor in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act's arbitrary and capricious standard (see 2509230043).
The agency opened the investigation after conducting an on-site verification of Kingtom's manufacturing facilities during an antidumping duty and countervailing duty evasion proceeding. Reif found that the results of the on-site verification didn't support the forced labor finding, since the verification predates the forced labor investigation itself and doesn't specifically allege the existence of forced labor.
However, in his discussion, the judge mistakenly referred to the verification report as the "allegation assessment." The U.S. seized on this in its motion for reconsideration, arguing that it constituted a mistake of fact and claiming that the allegation assessment was the "culmination of the forced labor investigation, which began after the EAPA verification concluded in 2021."
Reif found his mistake to be a "harmless error," since it's clear the court is referring to the verification report and not the allegation assessment. The court's intent to reference the verification report "is evinced by the Court’s citation to the on-site verification report, not the allegation assessment," the judge said.
And the court's discussion "immediately prior to the disputed passage discussed the inadequacy of the [public administrative record] when compared to the [public administrative record] in an analogous forced labor case," Reif added. It wouldn't have made sense for the court to analyze the merits of the allegation assessment, since that assessment was part of the "sealed confidential administrative record, which was not relevant to the court’s conclusion that the Finding was arbitrary and capricious," the court said.
The U.S. also alleged that Reif made a mistake of law when he vacated and remanded the forced labor finding as opposed to remanding the decision without vacatur.
The government said Reif spurned the two-prong test used to assess the propriety of vacatur established by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Nat'l Org. of Veterans' Advocs. v. Sec'y of Veterans Affs. (NOVA). The NOVA test said courts shall consider the "seriousness of the order's deficiencies" and the "disruptive consequences of an interim change that may itself be changed."
Reif held that CIT has recognized that "remand with vacatur is the default remedy for agency actions deemed unlawful" under the APA, adding that there was no reason for the court here to consider whether vacatur was appropriate, since the government never contested Kingtom's proposed remedy of vacatur. The judge construed the government's "initial silence as acquiescence to the default remedy under the APA -- remand with vacatur -- in the event that the court ruled that the Finding was unlawful."
While the U.S. cited the CAFC's recent ruling in the Section 301 case for the proposition that "vacatur is not always required when an agency has provided inadequate reasoning for its actions," Reif said this doesn't mean a court "must consider whether vacatur is required in every instance of arbitrary and capricious agency action." This is particularly the case "where vacatur is the default remedy and parties do not raise the issue," the judge said.
Brady Mills, counsel for Kingtom, said he is "pleased with the decision as it confirms that there was absolutely no legal basis for the government to seek reconsideration."
(Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, Slip Op. 25-151, CIT # 24-00264, dated 12/12/25; Judge: Timothy Reif; Attorneys: Brady Mills of Morris Manning for plaintiff Kingtom Aluminio; Monica Triana for defendant U.S. government; Robert DeFrancesco of Wiley Rein for defendant-intervenors Aluminum Extruders Council and United Steelworkers)