CBP Faces Legal Challenge Over Exclusion Of Camel Energy's Battery Imports

Camel Energy, a Michigan-based importer of lead-acid batteries, has recently filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade (CIT) contesting U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) two recent exclusions of its shipments. CBP excluded these entries due to "suspicion of being made with forced labor and subject to the UFLPA." Camel Energy maintains that these exclusions were unlawful.

The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) authorizes CBP to detain or exclude products made wholly or in part in Xinjiang or linked to entities included on the UFLPA Entity List. Camel Energy asserts that it is not on the Entity List, and its batteries are not produced with forced labor. Camel Energy's parent, Camel Group, is included in the UFLPA Entity List and is challenging its designation at the Court of International Trade separately.

In its complaint, Camel Energy notes that CBP:

• Excluded Entries Without Proper Evidence: CBP excluded two shipments "on suspicion" of forced labor, however Camel Energy claims CBP did not substantiate this suspicion or provide evidence.
• Provided No Admissibility Determination: Camel Energy states CBP never made a formal admissibility determination for its entries, causing its protests to be denied by default after months with no decision.
• Failed to Observe Response Deadlines: CBP allegedly did not give Camel Energy the required 30-day window to respond and prove the goods weren't linked to forced labor or the UFLPA Entity List.
• Lacked Notice and Transparency: Notices of detention and exclusion were sent days apart, with no explanation for this timeline. Camel Energy maintains that CBP failed to respond to its repeated requests for the evidence used against it.

The complaint highlights the broader issue of CBP' s detention or exclusion of 95 separate shipments of Camel Energy's batteries across multiple U.S. ports since August 21. Despite submitting responses and protests regarding most of these shipments, Camel Energy reportedly received no determination from the agency.

Camel Energy emphasized in its complaint that it has a "history of successful protests" against forced labor accusations in the past. The current lack of transparency and timely action by CBP, the company says, is deeply troubling, particularly due to the sudden exclusion notices and the absence of meaningful opportunity to respond.

This complaint highlights the challenges importers face under the UFLPA regime, especially pertaining to due process and evidence-sharing. Stakeholders in global supply chains, notably those dealing with products scrutinized under UFLPA, are watching the case closely for signals about future CBP enforcement practices and transparency.

Crowell & Moring will continue to monitor Camel Energy's challenge at the Court of International Trade (Camel Energy v. United States, CIT # 25-00230)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.