Litigants Nearing Resolution of Forced Labor Case Over Palm Oil WRO

The Department of Justice filed a motion, with the consent of the plaintiff -- palm oil importer Virtus Nutrition -- for an extension of time to reply to an amicus brief since the litigants are nearing a resolution of the case, DOJ said in the Dec. 3 filing. The case concerns a shipment of palm oil entered by Virtus that was excluded from entry by CBP over suspicions that the goods were made with forced labor. Virtus expects a sale and re-exportation of the palm oil following a U.S. Coast Guard inspection of the two-way hydrant system located at the port where the merchandise is being stored, the brief said. Once this inspection is completed, the goods will be on their way (Virtus Nutrition, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00165).

Virtus imported the palm fatty acid distillate and palm stearin from Malaysia. CBP excluded the imports from entry while it examines Virtus' supply chain for signs of forced labor (see 2105130055). The products were held under a Withhold Release Order that bars the entry of palm oil products made in Malaysia by Sime Darby Plantation Bhd on the grounds that the manufacturers' palm oil was made with forced labor.

Virtus challenged this exclusion at the Court of International Trade, originally seeking an expedited litigation schedule due to the six-month shelf life of its imports (see 2105170056). This move met pushback from DOJ, which said that the case concerns a complex, novel legal issue warranting of a longer discovery period. The stakes of the case were raised yet again when the American Apparel and Footwear Association filed a proposed amicus brief blasting CBP's enforcement of forced labor-related WROs (see 2108260048). The trade group said that CBP's enforcement efforts are riddled with due process violations, an unreasonable standard of evidence and an absence of transparency.

Rather than reply to the brief, DOJ and Virtus have filed multiple motions to extend the deadline to reply while the case reaches another end. "We are seeking to further extend the time for the Government to respond to the motion by American Apparel, by approximately 30 days, in an effort to resolve the case without the need of responding to the additional arguments presented by American Apparel in its proposed Amicus Curiae brief," the motion said. Patrick Gill, counsel for AAFA, signed off on this motion as well, the brief said.