Compliance

Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act

US law that presumes goods from the Xinjiang region are made with forced labour and bars their entry unless rebutted.

Aliases: UFLPA, Forced Labor Prevention Act, 维吾尔强迫劳动预防法, 涉疆法案

The presumption

The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act was signed in December 2021. Its operative rule, effective from 21 June 2022, is a rebuttable presumption: goods mined, produced or manufactured wholly or in part in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, or produced by an entity on the UFLPA Entity List, are presumed to be made with forced labour and are prohibited from entry into the United States.

The burden sits with the importer. CBP can detain the shipment, and release requires clear and convincing evidence that the goods were not produced with forced labour.

The entity list

A interagency task force, the FLETF, maintains the UFLPA Entity List, which names companies and facilities whose goods face the presumption. The list is updated periodically and has expanded to include entities beyond Xinjiang. Checking the current list before shipping is a basic control, not a one-off.

What evidence CBP expects

A release package typically requires:

Full supply chain tracing from the finished good back to the raw material
Documentation for each production step, including invoices, bills of lading and production records
Evidence of the origin of raw materials, such as cotton or polysilicon
Records showing the relationship between the exporter and each supplier in the chain

Traceability to the raw material is the hard requirement. Statements without documents do not rebut the presumption.

Sectors with the most exposure

Apparel and textiles, especially cotton; solar products and polysilicon; tomatoes and other agricultural goods; aluminium products; and increasingly electronics and automotive components. Sellers in these categories should assume scrutiny rather than hope for sampling.

Interaction with other rules

UFLPA applies regardless of value, so the end of the de minimis exemption did not reduce exposure; it increased the number of shipments assessed at entry. Detention can occur alongside classification and Section 301 review, and the entry is handled through a customs broker. In Europe, the parallel instruments are the EUDR for commodity due diligence and the proposed forced labour regulation, which uses a different procedure.

Practical control

Map the bill of materials to suppliers at each tier, collect origin documents at purchase rather than after detention, and treat the entity list as a screening input for every new supplier. CPSC compliance and other product rules are separate and do not reduce this exposure.

Primary source: Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, Public Law 117-78; CBP UFLPA operational guidance.

FAQ

Does UFLPA apply only to goods from Xinjiang?

The presumption covers goods from Xinjiang and goods produced by entities on the UFLPA Entity List, which includes companies located elsewhere. Supply chains that pass through listed entities are exposed.

Can an importer prove the goods are clean?

Yes, but the standard is demanding. CBP expects documented tracing to the raw material, with production records and invoices for each tier, and the evidence must be clear and convincing.

Does the end of de minimis change UFLPA exposure?

It increases it in practice, because every shipment now passes through an entry process where admissibility is assessed. UFLPA never had a value threshold.

What happens to a detained shipment?

CBP may allow export, abandon or destroy the goods if the importer does not provide a sufficient response within the response period. Storage costs accrue during detention.

How often is the entity list updated?

Periodically, with additions announced by DHS. Screening against the current list before each purchase order is the practical control.