CIT Speeds Up Camel Energy's Suit on Exclusion of Battery Entries
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 4 granted importer Camel Energy's motion to expedite its case against CBP's detention of two of its battery entries. Judge Claire Kelly, who was assigned to the case on Oct. 29, granted the motion to expedite and said that Camel Energy "may file a proposed briefing schedule" along with a "brief statement of reasons as to why this expedited timeframe is necessary" by Nov. 5 at 4 p.m. ET (Camel Energy v. United States, CIT # 25-00230).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
After Kelly granted the motion for expedited treatment, the U.S. filed its opposition to the importer's motion, though the motion came after 5 p.m. on Nov. 4, which was the deadline to file such a reply. The government argued that Camel Energy failed to establish good cause for expedited treatment, arguing that the importer failed to provide evidence that it "suffered any of the asserted damages."
Camel Energy filed suit last week to contest the exclusion of two of its entries, which CBP excluded for allegedly violating the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (see 2510270025). In its complaint, the importer said it didn't violate the UFLPA and that it wasn't given an opportunity to prove that the entries don't violate the statute.
The importer moved to speed up the case, arguing that CIT Rule 3(g)(3) allows for expedition where a case concerns the exclusion of merchandise from entering the U.S. (see 2510290022). While CBP said the goods were made in violation of UFLPA, the agency didn't specify whether the goods violated the statute for being made with forced labor in China's Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) or for being made by a company on the UFLPA Entity List.
The court held a telephone conference with the parties on Oct. 30, after which Kelly denied the government's oral motion to stay the case.
In its motion to expedite, Camel Energy said it was suffering damages, including storage fees for the battery entries. In response, the U.S. said this economic damage doesn't satisfy the court's standard for good cause to speed up the proceeding. "Whether disposition of this matter takes several additional months will not make the issue of admissibility of plaintiff’s merchandise moot or deprive the plaintiff of the value of the relief requested -- declaration that its merchandise is not subject to UFLPA and the entry of that merchandise," the brief said.
The U.S. added that Camel Energy's motion doesn't even "attempt to argue -- nor can it -- that an expedited schedule would serve the public interest." The government said, in fact, such a motion "would be contrary to the public interest if expediting the matter resulted in the admissibility of merchandise made in whole or in part with forced labor."
The U.S. also cited practical difficulties in expediting the case, namely issues in obtaining evidence located in Malaysia or China related to Camel Energy's supply chain.
In granting the motion to expedite, Kelly noted that Camel Energy told the court the "parties were unsuccessful in agreeing on a proposed briefing schedule" and said that the government failed to respond to the motion to expedite or file a proposed schedule or move for an extension of time by 5 p.m. on Nov. 4.
"Accordingly, the Court will consider Plaintiff’s proposed expedited briefing schedule," the judge said.