CBP 'Ready' to Implement Any New Mandates From Congress on UFLPA Enforcement

CBP will “stand ready” to implement any changes Congress may make to forced labor enforcement under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, Eric Choy, executive director of CBP’s Trade Remedy and Law Enforcement Division, said in remarks June 21.

Speaking in an interview with Kit Conklin of Kharon, a data and compliance consultancy, Choy acknowledged “perceived gaps” between what Congress expects and CBP’s enforcement approach, and said CBP will “work with our Hill stakeholders” on any potential new requirements or new statute “that could add on top of UFLPA.”

UFLPA enforcement recently has been a focus of some in Congress, with one witness at a recent hearing calling for the rebuttable presumption that goods produced in Xinjiang are produced with forced labor to be expanded to all of China (see 2305090056).

During the interview, Choy praised recent increases in funding for additional CBP personnel for UFLPA enforcement but said the hiring process for 300 additional employees, which will take place over a two-year period extending into next year, has been a “challenge.”

“Bringing these people on board to address additional capacity is a significant thing that the agency is working through,” Choy said. “We will be focusing in the coming year” on bringing “these folks on board,” whether through movement between jobs within CBP or new hires coming on board. “A significant amount of time is going to be spent on level-setting, training and normalizing these enforcement actions across the agency.”

A CBP official the previous day had said the administration’s request for CBP’s next budget does not include funding for all the new positions related to UFLPA enforcement (see 2306200045).

In response to a question from Conklin on what circumstances would prompt a criminal investigation into evasion or circumvention of UFLPA, Choy said it would require “knowingly importing” goods made with forced labor.

Using a cotton sock produced with forced labor as an example, he said the sock is not “a dangerous item,” but it is a “prohibited item.” He said that, “once that risk is made aware to you,” that the sock “could be made with forced labor,” if “conscious decisions are made to continue” importing the merchandise, “then there could be potential civil and criminal liabilities.”