Originally passed in December 2021 and entered into force in June of the following year, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) bars U.S. companies from importing any goods that were mined, manufactured, or produced using state-sponsored forced labor in the Xinjiang-Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of China. Under the UFLPA, CBP has detained nearly 10,000 shipments with a value in excess of $3.5 billion.
What Is the UFLPA and the Scope of Regulation?
The UFLPA was originally enacted to support Customs and Border Protection’s enforcement of Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1307), which prohibits the importation of goods made wholly or in part by forced labor. Crucially, the law establishes a rebuttable presumption that the importation of any goods mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in China’s Xinjiang region—often abbreviated as the XUAR—or produced by any entities or organizations on the UFLPA Entity List is a violation of Section 307, and is therefore strictly prohibited.
The Department of Homeland Security and the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force (FLETF), which track UFLPA implementation and shape enforcement strategy, originally designated three sectors as high priority for the law: cotton, tomatoes, and polysilicon. Since entering into force in 2022, the UFLPA has primarily affected the electronics, textile, agricultural, metals, and manufacturing materials industries.
Learn More About the Scope of the UFLPA
What’s the History Behind the UFLPA?
Dating back to the 2010s, the U.S. government has been aware of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) mass persecution and exploitation of Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in the nation’s far western province of Xinjiang. Over the past half-decade, a steady stream of expert testimonies, NGO investigations, and journalistic reporting has provided a credible and robust picture of a systematic campaign by the CCP to coerce rural farmers and traders in the XUAR into industrial labor programs thinly veiled as “assimilation policies.”
By 2020, this growing body of evidence triggered a wave of international condemnation, including accusations of crimes against humanity and even genocide. By the end of the following year, the Biden administration signed the UFLPA into law. The trade restriction’s twofold objective is to function as a means of deterrence for U.S. importers and a mechanism of accountability for the CCP and its human rights abuses.
Learn More About the UFLPA’s History
The UFLPA Entity List
In addition to the rebuttable presumption that any goods mined, manufactured, or produced in Xinjiang were done so using forced labor—and are thus prohibited from entry into the U.S. by Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930—the UFLPA is also enforced through the UFLPA Entity List. The list was first published on June 21, 2022—the effective date of the UFLPA itself—and at that time covered 21 companies. By the end of 2023, the Department of Homeland Security had added an additional 10 entities, including Ninestar Corporation, one of the largest printer manufacturers in the world.
In 2024, the DHS moved even more aggressively in expanding the UFLPA Entity List: as of the fall, the number of banned entities had grown to well over 70. The list currently spans a multiplicity of industries and manufacturing sectors, including not only electronics, mining, and textiles but also chemicals, biotechnology, and semiconductor manufacturing.
Learn More About the UFLPA Entity List
How Does CBP Enforce the UFLPA?
While the FLETF and the DHS, the agency where the task force is housed, develop and oversee the UFLPA, CBP is responsible for its enforcement on the ground. CBP does this in two ways. First, it enforces the law’s “rebuttable presumption” by detaining any goods originally mined, manufactured, or produced in the XUAR. In addition, it relies on the ever-expanding UFLPA Entity List, which details dozens of companies, organizations, and other entities that have known ties to the CCP’s forced labor schemes, including the government’s “poverty alleviation” and “pairing assistance” programs. Finally, CBP employs a dynamic approach with a fluid scope that prioritizes sectors and shipments according to the most current data and intelligence provided by the FLETF.
Learn More About CBP Enforcement
Forced Labor in the Electronics Supply Chain
Forced labor continues to be a serious and pervasive human rights concern worldwide, with statistics exhibiting an intractable and often institutionalized crime with no easy panacea. As of 2021, a total of nearly 28 million people were living under the conditions of forced labor, which the U.S. Department of Homeland Security defines as occurring when individuals are “compelled against their will to provide work or service through the use of force, fraud, or coercion.”
For the electronics industry specifically, the UFLPA imposes a new level of accountability for manufacturers and other businesses sourcing from suppliers with ties to forced labor. Companies caught importing shipments to the U.S. with connections to the XUAR or any organizations on the UFLPA Entity List will face CBP detainments that can turn into lengthy ordeals. Winning a release from the agency involves submitting extensive evidence, including supply chain tracing and chain of custody documentation, and firms often have to bring in costly legal expertise to navigate CBP’s requirements. And because of the industry’s sector-wide shift to sourcing significant proportions of polysilicon from Xinjiang, electronics shipments have represented around half of all CBP detainments since the UFLPA entered into force (and a far higher percentage of the total value of goods detained).
Learn More About Forced Labor in Electronics
The Auto Industry in the XUAR
In December 2022, Sheffield Hallam University’s Helena Kennedy Centre for International Justice published a comprehensive and revelatory exposé that drew on a trove of research, reporting, and publicly available data to demonstrate how the global automotive supply chain was deeply entrenched in the CCP’s forced labor practices in Xinjiang. The report implicated a myriad of the largest and most successful automakers in the world, including Volkswagen, Honda, Ford, General Motors, and Toyota.
The DHS and the FLETF responded to what would become known as the “Sheffield Report” in two subtle but significant ways. First, in November 2023 the agency brought Laura Murphy, the report’s chief author, on as its chief policy advisor for forced labor. Then, in February of 2024, CBP impounded thousands of vehicles being imported by Volkswagen—including around 1,000 Porsches and several thousand Audi vehicles—under the UFLPA. As of late 2024, however, it remains unclear whether the law will hold the trillion-dollar automotive industry to account in any sustained way for its extensive ties to systematic human rights abuses in Xinjiang.
Learn More About Forced Labor in Automotive
UFLPA Enforcement Trends
Over the course of fiscal year 2024, CBP ramped up its enforcement of the UFLPA in a number of key ways that U.S. importers and manufacturers should be aware of. The total value of UFLPA detainments during the year is close to matching the collective figure from 2022 and 2023 combined. Of potentially greater note is the fact that the agency dramatically shifted its scope of enforcement. While the law’s initial high-priority sectors, as stated by the FLETF, were cotton, tomatoes, and polysilicon—products that cut across several different industries—through the first three quarters of fiscal year 2024 nearly 90% of the total value of CBP detainments were in the electronics sector. Based on industry insiders and journalistic reporting, those detainments have included solar energy modules, lithium-ion batteries, and various automotive parts.
Learn More About UFLPA Trends
UFLPA Strategies for Manufacturers
As CBP’s enforcement of the UFLPA has scaled up and the FLETF has evolved the strategy behind the law based on developing research and reporting, U.S. manufacturers have had to respond with with agility and decisiveness. According to legal experts and consulting firms specializing in trade compliance, U.S. businesses should assess their risk exposure to forced labor in China by carrying out an audit of their import data using CBP’s Automated Commercial Environment portal. In addition, companies that have historically sourced heavily from China should consider diversifying their supply chain—a method commonly referred to as de-risking.
Learn More About UFLPA Strategy
Best Practices for UFLPA Compliance
There are a raft of measures U.S. businesses can take to put themselves in a better position to adhere to the UFLPA and avoid the costly consequences of a CBP detainment. First, organizations should educate themselves on the current high-priority sectors and items. Once a company determines if it’s importing goods that are in the crosshairs of CBP, it can then decide whether or not to move forward with more exhaustive risk management processes.
Companies interested in learning about their level of exposure to manufacturers in the XUAR can perform supply chain mapping to gain visibility into their sourcing locations and sub-tier suppliers. While a logistically challenging undertaking, supply chain mapping can be an irreplaceable means of tracing a business’s suppliers back to the level of raw materials, thereby shedding light on any possible forced labor exposure. Firms without the technological capabilities or bandwidth to execute on such a complex project might consider a supply chain risk management (SCRM) platform. These software tools can consolidate intelligence from databases, publicly available records, and other credible sources into a coherent picture that traces your products and components back to manufacturing sites and countries of origins all over the world.
Learn More About UFLPA Compliance
