CIT Vacates Forced Labor Determination as "Arbitrary and Capricious"

Sep. 24, 2025
By: Austin J. Eighan

The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) vacated a determination by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that a Dominican manufacturer utilized forced labor to produce aluminum extrusions. The Court held that CBP violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to adequately explain the rationale behind its determination, making its forced labor finding “arbitrary and capricious.”

In 2021, CBP conducted an on-site verification of Kingtom Aluminio S.R.L.’s (“Kingtom’s”) manufacturing facility under the Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) to verify compliance with antidumping and countervailing duty laws. Following the inspection, the Forced Labor Division of CBP’s Trade Remedy Law Enforcement Directorate initiated a separate forced labor investigation. In December 2024, CBP announced that “there [was] sufficient evidence that forced labor was being used to manufacture Kingtom’s aluminum extrusions.” Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1307 and 19 C.F.R. § 12.42(f), CBP’s determination meant aluminum produced by Kingtom would no longer be entitled to entry at any U.S. port unless importers proved by satisfactory evidence that the merchandise was not produced from forced labor.

Kingtom filed suit to challenge CBP’s determination, arguing that the agency violated the APA because the record upon which the agency based its conclusion did not “provide any evidentiary support, rationale, or factual basis for its conclusion.” Under the APA (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)), courts are required to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” or “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right.” The “arbitrary and capricious” standard arises when an agency action “entirely fail[s] to consider an important aspect of the problem, offer[] an explanation for its decision…or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.”Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). However, an agency will prevail if it can demonstrate it “examine[d] the relevant data and articulate[d] a satisfactory explanation for its action including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” Id.

The Court drew heavily from its decision in an analogous case, Ninestar Corp. v. United States, 687 F. Supp. 3d 1308 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024). In Ninestar, CBP added the plaintiff-corporation to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List, which prohibits “the importation into the United States of any goods produced by [an entity on the list.]”. In that case, the CIT acknowledged that an agency’s “conclusory recitation of the statute without further explanation plainly fails the APA’s arbitrary and capricious standard.” Id. at 1328. However, it ultimately found that CBP had adequately explained its decision because “[t]he connection between the facts found and each element [of the UFLPA listing was] either expressly discussed in, or reasonably discerned from, the Public Administrative Record.” Id. at 1330.

In this case, CBP filed a heavily redacted Public Administrative Record, which included several internal memoranda as the basis for its findings. The CIT found the records lacking, noting that they “consist[] largely of a barebones recitation of the statute and Customs’ regulations.” CBP provided only one statement linking its determination to a factual finding, which noted that “[t]hrough its investigation, [Customs] has determined that there is sufficient information to support a Finding that Kingtom Aluminio S.R.L. is using convict, forced, or indentured labor in a factory in the Dominican Republic to produce or manufacture in whole or in part aluminum extrusions and profile products and derivatives.” Without additional facts supporting CBP’s determination, the CIT found the agency’s allegations unsupported and conclusory. Consequently, the CIT vacated CBP’s findings and remanded the determination back to agency for further explanation or reconsideration.

If your company would like to review its supply chain for potential forced labor risks, guidance on its obligations under U.S. law to exercise reasonable care, or assistance preparing a forced labor related admissibility requests to CBP, please reach out to one of our attorneys at Barnes, Richardson & Colburn.