Camel Energy Intends to Keep Litigating UFLPA Suit on Seized Battery Entries Despite Release

Camel Energy said it discovered CBP relied on a memo called a "job aid" that instructed all ports to "immediately exclude" certain Camel Energy merchandise. The company said it will continue to litigate its case, since CBP's release of the company's merchandise "will do nothing to address the very real concern that the job aid remains effective and could still be used against Plaintiff in the future."

The present suit was filed last year to contest the exclusion of Camel Energy's battery entries, which were excluded based on concerns that they violated the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (see 2510270025). The company argued in its complaint that it wasn't given a chance to prove that the entries didn't violate the statute. The trade court granted the exporter's motion to expedite its case, and discovery commenced in the lawsuit (see 2511050003).

During discovery, Camel Group said it "came to light" that CBP was relying on the secret job aid, which also included an "unsubstantiated allegation that employees related to Plaintiff had apparently reported that Camel Group, Inc. (the ultimate parent of Plaintiff) was importing goods into the U.S. under various aliases." Despite Camel Group not being named as one of these companies, the government's witness, CBP officer John Bristol, "admitted that the job aid was the reason all of Plaintiff’s goods were being detained and excluded from entry into the U.S.," Camel Group said.

The exporter said Bristol's account "completely contradicted the initial CBP narrative that this was a simple UFLPA supply chain review and instead made the focal point of this case about the job aid itself." Camel Group said that the "secrecy surrounding the job aid and the lengths [to which] the Government has gone to keep the facts behind its genesis, its application, and whether it remains in effect today has been extraordinary."

On Jan. 30, CBP issued a decision, via Bristol, declaring there to be no link to forced labor in the supply chain for Camel Energy's entries and instructing ports to release all detained entries not covered by the litigation. Then on Feb. 6, the government filed a status report declaring it intends to release the goods subject to this action.

Camel Energy said that "simple release and dismissal do not adequately address the harm suffered by Camel Energy for two reasons." First, the company has suffered "significant reputational harm as a result of CBP’s actions and allegations," and second, release of the goods will do nothing to address the concern that the job aid will be used in the future, the brief said.

In addition, the exporter said the government's status report is unclear on whether the U.S. "believes the UFLPA applies to Camel Energy’s supply chain but that in this specific circumstance for these specific entries of merchandise Camel Energy satisfactorily proved no link to forced labor," or whether the U.S. has found that the UFLPA doesn't apply to Camel Energy's supply chain writ large. Camel Group said the distinction matters, since if the government merely believes these entries are not in violation of the UFLPA, "Camel Energy can expect more detentions, more exclusions, and more lawsuits."

After communicating with the government's counsel, Camel Group told CIT that the U.S. "clearly has no intention of addressing the job aid that now makes up the core of this litigation and causes very real concern for the Plaintiff that it could simply wind up right back in court fighting the same fight."