(a) If any port director or other principal Customs officer has reason to believe that any class of merchandise that is being, or is likely to be, imported into the United States is being produced, whether by mining, manufacture, or other means, in any foreign locality with the use of convict labor, forced labor, or indentured labor under penal sanctions, including forced child labor or indentured child labor under penal sanctions, so as to come within the purview of section 307, Tariff Act of 1930, he shall communicate his belief to the Commissioner of CBP. Every such communication shall contain or be accompanied by a statement of substantially the same information as is required in paragraph (b) of this section, if in the possession of the port director or other officer or readily available to him.
(b) Any person outside CBP who has reason to believe that merchandise produced in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (a) of this section is being, or is likely to be, imported into the United States may communicate his belief to any port director or the Commissioner of CBP. Every such communication shall contain, or be accompanied by:
(1) A full statement of the reasons for the belief;
(2) A detailed description or sample of the merchandise; and
(3) All pertinent facts obtainable as to the production of the merchandise abroad.
(c) If any information filed with a port director pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section does not conform with the requirements of that paragraph, the communication shall be returned promptly to the person who submitted it with detailed written advice as to the respects in which it does not conform. If such information is found to comply with the requirements, it shall be transmitted by the port director within 10 days to the Commissioner of CBP, together with all pertinent additional information available to the port director.
(d) Upon receipt by the Commissioner of CBP of any communication submitted pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) of this section and found to comply with the requirements of the pertinent paragraph, the Commissioner will cause such investigation to be made as appears to be warranted by the circumstances of the case and the Commissioner or his designated representative will consider any representations offered by foreign interests, importers, domestic producers, or other interested persons.
(e) If the Commissioner of CBP finds at any time that information available reasonably but not conclusively indicates that merchandise within the purview of section 307 is being, or is likely to be, imported, he will promptly advise all port directors accordingly and the port directors shall thereupon withhold release of any such merchandise pending instructions from the Commissioner as to whether the merchandise may be released otherwise than for exportation.
(f) If it is determined on the basis of the foregoing that the merchandise is subject to the provisions of the said section 307, the Commissioner of CBP, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, will publish a finding to that effect in a weekly issue of the Customs Bulletin and in the Federal Register.
(g) Any merchandise of a class specified in a finding made under paragraph (f) of this section, which is imported directly or indirectly from the locality specified in the findings and has not been released from CBP custody before the date of publication of such finding in the Federal Register shall be considered and treated as an importation prohibited by section 307, Tariff Act of 1930, unless the importer establishes by satisfactory evidence that the merchandise was not mined, produced, or manufactured in any part with the use of a class of labor specified in the finding.
(h) The following findings made under the authority of section 307, Tariff Act of 1930 are currently in effect with respect to the merchandise listed below:
| Merchandise | Country | T.D. |
|---|
| Furniture, clothes hampers, and palm leaf bags | Ciudad Victoria, Tamaulipas, Mexico | 53408
54725 |
Notes of Decisions
McKinney v. United States Dep't of the Treasury, 614 F. Supp. 1226 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1985).
· cites it 5× “42, Customs Regulations, 19 C.F.R. § 12.42 (1982). In substance, section 307 prohibits importation of products produced in whole or in part by forced labor unless domestic production is insufficient to meet United States consumption demands for these products.”
Ninestar Corp. v. United States, 2024 CIT 24 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2024).
· cites it 2× “19 C.F.R. § 12.42 (a). If Customs “finds at any time that information available reasonably but not conclusively indicates that merchandise within the purview of section 307 is being, or is likely to be, imported,” the agency Court No.”
Int'l Labor Rights Fund v. Bush, 357 F. Supp. 2d 204 (D.D.C. 2004).
· cites it 5× “” 19 C.F.R. § 12.42 (b). Upon receipt of information submitted in compliance with the regula *206 tions, “the Commissioner will cause such investigation-to be made as appears to be warranted by the circumstances of the case.”
Int'l Labor Rights Fund v. United States, 391 F. Supp. 2d 1370 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005).
· cites it 3× “cretary of Homeland Security, the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection (formerly the Commissioner of Customs), the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (BICE), and the United States Department of Homeland…”
China Diesel Imports, Inc. v. United States, 855 F. Supp. 380 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994).
· cites it 2× “” 19 C.F.R. § 12.42 (g). An importer may contest a finding by submitting *385 to Customs, within three months after the date of importation, a certifícate of origin signed by the foreign seller and a statement from the importer showing that “every reasonable effort [was made] to…”
Associated Imports, Inc. v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, AFL-CIO, 609 F. Supp. 595 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).
“Because of the disruptive potential of any other course, particularly in these circumstances, I conclude that this is the exclusive means by which the Union could have gained § 1307 sanction for its use of what was otherwise an illegal boycott by seeking the prior approval of…”
McKinney v. United States Dep't of the Treasury, 799 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
· cites it 6× “” The Commissioner sought to publish these findings as provided by 19 CFR § 12.42 (f). Although not explicitly found by the court the Commissioner of Customs appears to have made the necessary condition-precedent findings under 19 CFR § 12.”
Int'l Rights Advocates v. Mullin (Fed. Cir. 2026).
· cites it 4× “Customs’ implementing regulation for section 307, 19 C.F.R. § 12.42 , 1 governs Customs’ receipt and require- ments for petitions, initiation of investigations, and issu- ance of Withhold Release Orders to detain shipments at United States ports of entry for potential…”
Kingtom Aluminio S.R.L. v. United States, 2025 CIT 125 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).
· cites it 2× “19 C.F.R. § 12.42 (a). Further, if the Commissioner of Customs finds at any time that information available reasonably but not conclusively indicates that merchandise within the purview of [§ 1307] is being, or is likely to be, imported, he will promptly advise all port…”
Mckinney v. United States Dep't Of The Treasury, 799 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
“See 19 CFR 12.42(g). In May 1984, the Secretary of the Treasury notified the Commissioner that such a determination was not warranted at that time, but should be deferred pending a study by the International Trade Commission.”
— 19 C.F.R. § 12.42(f) — 1 case
Kingtom Aluminio S.R.L. v. United States, 2025 CIT 125 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).
“19 C.F.R. § 12.42 (a). Further, if the Commissioner of Customs finds at any time that information available reasonably but not conclusively indicates that merchandise within the purview of [§ 1307] is being, or is likely to be, imported, he will promptly advise all port…”
— 19 C.F.R. § 12.42(g) — 2 cases
McKinney v. United States Dep't of the Treasury, 799 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
“” The Commissioner sought to publish these findings as provided by 19 CFR § 12.42 (f). Although not explicitly found by the court the Commissioner of Customs appears to have made the necessary condition-precedent findings under 19 CFR § 12.”
Mckinney v. United States Dep't Of The Treasury, 799 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
“See 19 CFR 12.42(g). In May 1984, the Secretary of the Treasury notified the Commissioner that such a determination was not warranted at that time, but should be deferred pending a study by the International Trade Commission.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.