The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia last week granted anti-forced labor group International Rights Advocates' motion to remand its suit against three major chocolate makers to the D.C. Superior Court (International Rights Advocates v. United States, D.D.C. # 24-00894).
A federal court in the District of Columbia last week dismissed a suit against U.S. personal care product giant Kimberly-Clark Corp. and Ansell Healthcare Products, which alleged that the companies knowingly benefited from taking part in a venture that engaged in forced labor. Judge Carl Michols held that Kimberly-Clark and Ansell didn't take part in a venture and didn't have the "requisite knowledge" to establish liability under the Trafficking Victims Protection and Reauthorization Act (Mohammed Forhad Mia, et al. v. Kimberly-Clark, et al., D.D.C. # 1:22-02353).
Four Indonesian citizens filed suit on March 12 in a California federal court alleging that tuna seller Bumble Bee Foods violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act by knowingly benefiting from a venture that engaged in forced labor. The four individuals -- Akhmad, Angga and Muhammad Sahrudin and Muhammad Syafi'i -- said they worked as laborers on longline fishing vessels that Bumble Bee sourced its albacore tuna from and alleged that the company knowingly benefited from their forced labor (Akhmad Sahrudin v. Bumblee Bee Foods, S.D. Cal. # 3:25-00583).
The U.S. government's attempt to dismiss anti-forced labor group International Rights Advocates' (IRAdvocates) suit seeking to compel CBP to respond to a withhold release order petition on cocoa from Cote d'Ivoire is "premised on a significant mischaracterization of IRAdvocates' case," the group argued. Filing a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 13, IRAdvocates said its case is meant to compel a CBP response to the petition and not to secure an affirmative determination on the WRO, as the U.S. suggests (International Rights Advocates v. Kristi Noem, Fed. Cir. # 24-2316).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Anti-forced labor advocacy group International Rights Advocates (IRAdvocates) doesn't have standing to challenge CBP's failure to respond to a withhold release order petition to ban cocoa from Cote d'Ivoire, the U.S. argued in a Feb. 20 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The government claimed that IRAdvocates has not established that it suffered an "injury in fact." It also said any alleged injury isn't "traceable" to the "non-issuance of a WRO," and that the alleged injury isn't "redressable" by CBP (International Rights Advocates v. Kristi Noem, Fed. Cir. # 24-2316).
Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio asked the Court of International Trade to expedite its challenge to CBP's finding that the company makes aluminum extrusions using forced labor, arguing that there's a "very real possibility" the company will have to "cease operations and file for bankruptcy as a result of" the forced labor finding (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT # 24-00264).
Exporter Kingtom Aluminio opposed an attempt by U.S. industry groups the Aluminum Extruders Council and the United Steelworkers union to intervene in Kingtom's case against a finding by CBP that the company uses forced labor. Kingtom argued that the petitioners want to employ the "age-old schoolyard tactic of 'two-against-one,'" adding that the parties have "no independent interest of their own in this action" (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT # 24-00264).
Chinese manufacturer Camel Group Co. took to the Court of International Trade last week to contest its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List, arguing that the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force "utterly disregarded, ignored and trampled" its due process rights in a "flawed and poorly executed process." The company said FLETF illicitly conducted the process in the shadows, refusing to offer it access to any of the evidence used against the company, and that the decision to deny its petition to be removed from the list wasn't backed by substantial evidence (Camel Group Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00022).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: