The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA), signed into law on December 23, 2021, and fully implemented by US Customs and Border Protection beginning June 21, 2022, represents the most significant legal development in supply chain forced labor compliance in US import/export law in history. The UFLPA establishes a rebuttable presumption that all goods, wares, articles, and merchandise mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China — or by entities on the UFLPA Entity List — are produced with forced labor and are therefore prohibited from importation into the United States under Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930. This presumption shifts the burden of proof from the government to the importer: instead of CBP having to demonstrate that a specific shipment was produced with forced labor, the importer must affirmatively demonstrate that the goods were not produced with forced labor in order to clear customs.
The UFLPA’s rebuttable presumption is grounded in documented findings by the US government, NGOs, investigative journalists, and academic researchers that the Chinese government has established a system of state-sponsored forced labor in Xinjiang, utilizing the Uyghur ethnic minority population and other minority groups in compulsory labor programs connected to cotton production, polysilicon manufacturing, tomato processing, and a wide range of other industries. Because Xinjiang is a major global supplier of cotton (accounting for approximately 85 percent of China’s cotton production), polysilicon (a key material in solar panels), and tomatoes, the UFLPA’s impact extends far beyond companies with direct sourcing relationships in Xinjiang to companies whose supply chains include these commodities anywhere in their structure.
The Rebuttable Presumption
The rebuttable presumption is the heart of the UFLPA’s enforcement framework. It applies to any goods, wares, articles, or merchandise that are mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in Xinjiang, or that are produced by entities on the UFLPA Entity List. The phrase ‘wholly or in part’ is significant: even goods that include only a component or a raw material that originated in Xinjiang are potentially subject to the presumption. A finished garment made of Xinjiang cotton, even if the yarn was spun in Bangladesh, the fabric was woven in Vietnam, and the garment was sewn in Cambodia, could trigger the presumption because the cotton component is of Xinjiang origin.
To rebut the presumption and obtain release of detained goods, the importer must demonstrate, by ‘clear and convincing evidence,’ that the goods were not produced wholly or in part in Xinjiang, not produced with forced labor, and that the importer fully complied with the UFLPA’s due diligence guidance and CBP’s regulations and requests. The ‘clear and convincing evidence’ standard is demanding — it is higher than the preponderance standard but lower than the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard used in criminal cases. In practice, meeting this standard requires supply chain documentation that traces the product and each of its significant inputs back to their origin with specific, verifiable evidence, not merely supplier certifications or audit reports that CBP considers insufficient.
The UFLPA Entity List
The UFLPA established the UFLPA Entity List, maintained by the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force (FLETF) within the Department of Homeland Security. The Entity List identifies entities that are: involved in the practice of using labor transfers or forced labor in Xinjiang; that exported goods produced with forced labor from Xinjiang; or that are affiliates of such entities. Goods produced by any entity on the UFLPA Entity List are subject to the rebuttable presumption regardless of where the goods were produced — meaning that goods produced by an Entity List company outside of Xinjiang are also presumed to have been produced with forced labor and may not be imported without rebutting the presumption.
The Entity List has grown significantly since the UFLPA’s implementation. It now includes entities involved in cotton, polysilicon, textiles, electronics, and other industries, and DHS has indicated that it will continue to add entities as investigations are completed. For importers, monitoring the Entity List is a continuous compliance obligation: a supplier that is not on the list today may be added tomorrow, and any shipment from a newly listed entity that has already departed origin will be subject to detention upon arrival in the US. Importers who discover that a supplier has been added to the Entity List while a shipment is in transit face the difficult choice of attempting to reroute the goods, allowing them to be detained and attempting to rebut the presumption, or abandoning the shipment.
CBP Enforcement and Detention Procedures
CBP enforces the UFLPA through a risk-based targeting system that identifies shipments for potential UFLPA review based on supply chain characteristics, product categories, CBP intelligence, and other factors. When CBP targets a shipment for UFLPA review, it issues a detention notice to the importer, typically requiring the importer to respond within 30 days with evidence addressing the UFLPA presumption. The importer may request additional time if needed for a complex supply chain investigation, but CBP’s review timeline is constrained, and delays in responding can result in exclusion or seizure of the detained goods.
If CBP determines that the importer has not adequately rebutted the presumption, it will issue an exclusion order, prohibiting entry of the goods into the United States. The excluded goods must be re-exported or, in some circumstances, forfeited. The importer may protest the exclusion decision and appeal to CBP’s Office of Trade Remedy, and ultimately to the Court of International Trade if the administrative appeal is unsuccessful. UFLPA enforcement has resulted in the detention of billions of dollars of goods since June 2022, affecting apparel, electronics, solar panels, and a wide range of other product categories. The detention and exclusion process is disruptive and expensive even for companies that ultimately succeed in rebutting the presumption. For more on CBP’s broader enforcement authority, see our US Customs Compliance article.
Due Diligence Required to Rebut the Presumption
FLETF has published guidance on the due diligence that importers must conduct to rebut the UFLPA presumption. The guidance specifies three categories of information that CBP will consider: supply chain tracing (documenting the full supply chain for the goods and each significant input, from raw material to finished product); evidence that the goods and inputs were not produced wholly or in part in Xinjiang; and evidence that the importer has a robust supply chain due diligence program that includes supplier assessments, audit requirements, and corrective action mechanisms.
Supply chain tracing is the most demanding element. CBP requires evidence of the origin of every significant raw material or component in the product, going back to the point of extraction or initial production. For cotton-containing products, this means documenting the origin of the cotton fiber through ginning, spinning, weaving or knitting, dyeing, finishing, and garment construction. For polysilicon products, this means tracing the silica raw material through the polysilicon manufacturing, ingot growing, wafer slicing, cell production, and module assembly stages. These multi-tier supply chain traces require detailed supplier documentation that many suppliers are reluctant or unable to provide, and that CBP scrutinizes carefully for credibility and completeness.
Social compliance audits — third-party audits of suppliers’ labor practices — is a necessary element of any serious UFLPA compliance program, but they are not sufficient on their own to rebut the UFLPA presumption. CBP has explicitly stated that audit reports alone, without supporting documentary evidence tracing the supply chain, do not satisfy the UFLPA evidentiary standard. This reflects a broader recognition that social compliance audits in Xinjiang have been systematically compromised by the Chinese government’s control over audit processes and auditor access. Companies that relied exclusively on audit-based forced labor compliance programs before the UFLPA must supplement them with the documentary supply chain tracing that the UFLPA requires.