My shipment was detained under the UFLPA — what now?

The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act sets a rebuttable presumption: goods made wholly or in part in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, or by a company on the UFLPA Entity List, are presumed to be made with forced labor and barred from entry. When CBP detains a shipment on that basis, the goods do not enter unless the importer answers the presumption — and the burden sits with the importer.

The detention notice, and its UFLPA attachment, state the basis for the hold. It matters which it is: a match to a company on the Entity List is a different starting point from a broader Xinjiang-nexus concern about the supply chain.

The detention notice sets a 30-day window. Within 30 days of the detention, the importer's options are to export or destroy the goods, or to ask CBP for an applicability or exception review — which, per CBP's guidance, is done by emailing the point of contact named on the notice before the 30 days run out, then submitting the documentation through CBP's Forced Labor Portal.

The 30 days can be extended, but only on request and only so far. CBP's guidance allows a maximum of two extensions, not exceeding 90 calendar days in total from the date of the detention notice, granted case by case at CBP's discretion. An extension has to be requested before the current window expires.

If nothing is done within the 30 days, CBP treats the shipment as excluded and issues an exclusion notice. Storage costs run against the importer the whole time the goods are held. Because assembling a supply-chain package takes far longer than 30 days, the work usually has to begin the day the notice arrives.

CBP publishes two ways to answer a detention, plus the option not to contest it.

An applicability review asks CBP to find that the UFLPA does not apply — that no goods or inputs in the shipment were mined, produced, or manufactured, wholly or in part, in the Xinjiang region or by a company on the UFLPA Entity List. It is supported by documentation tracing the supply chain from the raw-material stage to the finished good.

An exception request does not contest that connection. It concedes a Xinjiang or Entity List nexus and rebuts the presumption directly — demonstrating, by clear and convincing evidence, that the goods were not made with forced labor, alongside full compliance with the due-diligence and tracing steps in the UFLPA Strategy. It is the demanding standard.

The third option is to export or destroy the shipment rather than contest it. Which path fits is a legal and commercial judgement, not something to decide from a checklist.

If CBP denies the review, or if the 30 days pass with no response, CBP issues an exclusion notice. From there the importer can file a protest under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 to challenge the exclusion, or export or destroy the goods, within 180 days of the exclusion. This is a separate, later stage from the 30-day detention window — a different deadline governing a different decision.

The importer of record is the party CBP notifies and the party responsible for the response. In practice a licensed customs attorney experienced in forced-labor detentions leads it — the choice of path, the framing, and the submission are legal work. The factory and its own upstream suppliers are where the production and tracing records come from, which is why they are asked for early.