UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Slip Op. 25-125

In Kingtom Aluminio S.R.L., v. United States; U.S. Customs and Border Protection; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Alejandro N. Mayorkas and Troy A. Miller Court No. 24-00264, (September 23, 2025), Plaintiff brought the action to challenge Finding in a motion for judgment on the agency record pursuant to U.S. Court of International Trade Rule 56.1– more specifically that the Finding is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” The court vacated the Finding and remands to Customs for further explanation or reconsideration consistent with Judge Reif’s opinion in the instant case.

From August 30 to September 2, 2021, Customs conducted an on-site verification of plaintiff’s facilities in the Dominican Republic, which was followed by a forced labor  investigation resulting in a Customs Finding against the plaintiff. The court has previously found that when an agency repeats the statute in a conclusory manner without  further explanation, then the agency’s conclusion fails the APA’s arbitrary and capricious standard. If the grounds for the conclusion are insufficient, then the court can remand so that the agency can provide “a fuller explanation of the agency’s reasoning at the time of the action.” Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (“Regents”), 591 U.S. 1, 20 (2020) (quoting Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. LTV Corp., 496 U.S. 633, 654 (1990)). The court can also remand so that the agency can start afresh and take new agency action following procedural requirements.

The court finds that Customs did not provide an adequate explanation for its determination in the Finding. “[T]he Finding consists largely of a barebones recitation of the statute and Customs’ regulations.” Kingtom Aluminio S.R.L., v. United States; U.S. Customs and Border Protection; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Alejandro N. Mayorkas and Troy A. Miller Court No. 24-00264, (September 23, 2025). The court further explained that the Confidential Administrative Record that defendants filed under seal does not explain the determination and the most detailed document simply summarizes the Trade Remedy Law Enforcement Directorate’s process with conclusory sentences. The court concludes that Customs in the Public Administrative Record and the Finding failed to “articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action” based on a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 43 (1983).