Customs Targets Thousands of Suspected Forced-Labor Shipments Under New Bill

An official sheds light on challenges in enforcing the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act.

By
13

The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act went into force just three months ago, and it has already had an effect. But Xinjiang’s role in the global economy is so immense—and the Chinese government’s transfers of ethnic minorities to other parts of China to work are so sweeping—that the American government still has a long way to go in stopping products made with forced labor from coming into the United States. 

From October 1 of last year through mid-September of this year, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) targeted more than 3,600 shipments worth nearly $800 million from around the world for potential ties to forced labor, according to Eric Choy, acting executive director of CBP’s trade remedy law enforcement directorate. He told The Dispatch in an interview Monday that of those, around 1,500 were targeted under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, adding up to about $420 million.

“Targeting” in this case means identifying a shipment for further inspection, a CBP spokeswoman clarified. Choy’s numbers reflect those reviews, a subset of which ended in shipments being detained at ports of entry. In some instances, companies have decided to re-export targeted shipments to other countries rather than go through the CBP process under the new forced labor law. Those re-exports will not show up in the final fiscal year 2022 statistics on detentions, but they are included in the larger targeting number Choy shared.

Government officials and businesses will be watching closely in the coming weeks for new numbers from CBP on detentions, including the months since the new law went into effect. CBP detained a total of 1,469 shipments for forced labor concerns last fiscal year—before the Uyghur forced labor law passed—adding up to $486 million.

Start a Free Trial
Get every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism. Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
13
By
Comments (13)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Chuckgold

    I'm old enough to remember the days when the U.S.A. refused to trade with Red China (a slave state). I believe in free trade, and perhaps the Nixon-Kissinger deal to open China was a worthwhile effort, in hopes of liberalizing a tyrannical government. But that hasn't happened. And this reporting surely exposes the difficulties of determining which companies or products within China are using slave labor. We must hire and train large numbers of federal employees to track down activities that can be hidden, changed, or lied about, and that must use sources (perhaps put in danger if revealed) from inside China.

    Wouldn't it be wiser to scale down trade with slave states (China), and end it as rapidly as possible, keeping fairness to our citizens and companies in mind? I realize that would bring a measure of economic pain and dislocation here, but if we truly care about the victims of slavery and genocide, wouldn't it be best? Honest question.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Probably Wrong

    Articles like this give me hope that somewhere on Capitol Hill, perhaps in a disused broom closet, there are a handful of people still doing their jobs

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Bill

    Thanks much for the update - just last week my wife and I were wondering how things were working out so far with the UFLPA. And you seem to be the only journalist who has the skill and motivation to keep us informed. Tell your boss you *deserve* a raise.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Michael Darwin

    I understand euphemisms are the foundation of political language these days, but why in the world is "forced labor" even part of the lexicon? Just call it what it is: slavery.

    Collapse
  5. Laura

    I'm curious about more of the nuts and bolts of this. Are all of the teeth of the UFLPA focused on goods crossing the border?

    Say I'm looking at a pair of cute Stitch pj's online from a company located in China. Let's say this company is tainted. If I had been someone who hadn't read/listened to Haley's long piece, I might order those pj's without a second thought. But what happens next? The Chinese company then would have my money, and I'm guessing would either put the pj's on a boat, or would send a shipment from a warehouse in the US that had already been stocked. In the latter case I'm guessing unaware me would continue to be unaware. In the former case, what happens? My shipment wouldn't come? Could I get a note from CBP saying "don't order from this company again"? Could I be subjected to a fine?

    Collapse
  6. Nick Palma

    Really appreciate this type of granular detail, especially on a topic we don’t want too far off the front-burner.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    JohnM.

    Your continued reporting on the Uyghur issue and the UFLPA are greatly appreciated, Haley. I'm not finding much outside of Uphill.

    Collapse
  8. learnin4life

    I appreciate Uphill because it frequently focuses on topic that don't wreak of partisan bickering, e.g., Uyghur abuses. It's not surprising that attempting to identify products produced with forced labor is like playing whack-a-mole. China is not interested in making identification easy.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    EricRemcon@gmail

    👏 Thanks for the follow-up to your long piece on the Uyghur forced labor bill, Haley.

    I have to admit that my ignorant-self was confused by the term “red date”. I thought it was a reference to a calendar date the product was shipped (red, being after law). But it means the food item – red date. After I realized that it made more sense 😁.

    This line stuck out to me:

    “Yet with that information now public, she said she would not be surprised if shipments begin to arrive with new labels less easily tied to Xinjiang and the XPCC.”

    The sourcing obfuscation efforts of the importers, transport of Uyghur laborers around China, and the sheer magnitude of products involved is going to make this an enforcement nightmare. While I applaud the intentions of the bill, I hope this doesn’t turn into a rent-seeking connection game where you can get product in if you know the right palms to grease.

    Many are complaining about the IRS expansion, if done right, it seems this will be an area where much expansion (and arguing about that expansion) will be necessary.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Pstahley

    Seems a little like giving a bit of a free pass to not note that Senate Republican leadership is whipping AGAINST permitting reform, which is a longstanding GOP priority, and the corresponding "politics vs policy" fight going on there... instead the only note is "controversial permitting package", without any explanation of how or why it might be considered controversial (and by who).

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Haley Byrd Wilt vertical-nib Author

      I described it that way simply because both Republicans and Democrats have expressed opposition to it, but I am planning to write something longer on the bill soon!

      Collapse
      1. sharon

        A beginning to something bigger. Thank you for taking the time to care and write about people who are suffering.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Pstahley

        Fair enough, and appreciate the response!

        I primarily raise it because I do think with a lot of the narrative in conservative circles generally saying that "Democrats and environmentalists never support building things", given the tilt of Dispatch readership, most would assume by default that the controversy is primarily that the permitting reforms lack Democratic support; whereas right now the question is whether long time Republican permitting reform advocates will support it in the face of Senate leadership direction to the contrary.

        Collapse