Lawyer Advises Documenting That Imports Have No Xinjiang Content
Sidley Austin Partner Ted Murphy noted in his blog that while it is not easy to document that imports do not contain Xinjiang content, "we believe that it will be easier (and quicker) for most companies to demonstrate that articles do not contain Xinjiang content (or production by yet-to-be listed entities), than it will be to rebut the presumption of forced labor (which is likely to be a long-drawn out process)."
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Murphy's post follows CBP's posting of the "known importer" letters CBP recently sent to companies it knows have imported from Xinjiang in the past. Those letters warned that the presumption that goods made in Xinjiang are made with forced labor "will require the importer to not only use due diligence in evaluation of its supply chain, but also to respond completely and substantively to CBP requests for information regarding entries it may review.
"As your company has previously imported merchandise sourced from locations or entities potentially subject to the Act, you are being notified that any future entries of such merchandise may be subject to CBP enforcement action, including seizure, forfeiture and/or penalties, or other appropriate action under the customs laws. In any future CBP enforcement action related to such merchandise, CBP will take into consideration the fact that you have been provided this notice in determining appropriate administrative remedies," said one version of the letter.
A version for CTPAT members said "subsequent entries of such merchandise also may result in suspension or removal from the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (CTPAT) program."