Section 307 Findings: What Importers Need to Know

Most forced labor enforcement under Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 begins with a withhold release order (WRO), which allows U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to detain a shipment while the importer demonstrates that the goods are admissible. A Finding is a more serious step. It authorizes CBP to seize the goods outright, and it can take effect without prior notice. In December 2024, CBP issued a Finding against a Dominican aluminum producer that took effect on the day of publication, with no WRO preceding it.

Although a Finding targets a specific producer’s goods, the consequences fall on the importer of record. Companies that source through agents or trading houses, or that can’t trace a product to the facility where it was made, carry both the risk exposure and the burden of proof.

This article covers what a Section 307 Finding is, how CBP issues one, what happens to seized goods, and how importers can prepare.

What Is a Section 307 Finding?

A Section 307 Finding is a formal determination by CBP that a specific producer’s goods were made with forced labor and are barred from entering the United States. It is the stronger of CBP’s two enforcement options under Section 307, because it allows the agency to seize covered goods rather than hold them. CBP’s forced labor FAQs explain where Findings fit in its enforcement process, and our guide to the Section 307 forced labor import prohibition covers the ban itself.

Section 307 defines forced labor as work or service taken from a person under threat of a penalty, which the person has not offered to do voluntarily. The definition explicitly includes forced or indentured child labor. Under 19 CFR 12.42(g), goods covered by a Finding are treated as prohibited unless the importer shows, with satisfactory evidence, that no forced labor was used to produce them.

A Finding applies to individual shipments, unlike the 2026 Section 301 forced labor action (91 FR 47318), which adds duties on imports from 60 economies for failing to ban or enforce bans on imports made with forced labor but still allows goods to enter. Our guide to Section 301 forced labor tariffs covers that action in detail.

WRO vs. Finding: What’s the Difference?

A WRO allows CBP to detain goods while it reviews the evidence. A Finding allows CBP to take ownership of them. 

	Withhold release order	Finding
What CBP needs	Reasonable suspicion	Probable cause
What happens to the shipment	Detained	Seized
Can the importer export the goods?	Yes	No
How the importer responds	Admissibility review through CBP’s Forced Labor Portal	Petition to CBP’s Fines, Penalties and Forfeitures Officer
Time to act	Three months from importation	30 days from the notice of seizure
Outcome if unresolved	Goods are excluded from entry	Goods are forfeited and destroyed

Evidence Threshold

A Finding requires stronger evidence than a WRO. A WRO requires reasonable suspicion, meaning specific facts that point to forced labor. A Finding requires probable cause, meaning enough evidence that a reasonable person would believe forced labor was used. CBP’s WRO and Finding Modifications Guide from May 2025 and its Forced Labor Enforcement Operational Guidance for Importers from June 2026 both use those standards. Some older CBP materials describe the Finding threshold differently, but importers should plan around the plausible cause standard.

Detention vs. Seizure

Detention means CBP holds goods temporarily while it reviews the case, but the importer retains ownership. Seizure, on the other hand, means CBP takes full ownership of the goods immediately, and the importer loses its property interest. CBP treats the goods themselves as the violator, so a Finding acts against the cargo rather than penalizing the company.

Section 307 Findings and UFLPA

The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) works inside Section 307 rather than alongside it. It presumes that goods made wholly or in part in China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, or by companies on the UFLPA Entity List, are prohibited under Section 307. Importers must refute that presumption with clear and convincing evidence.

That reverses the usual order of enforcement. With a WRO or a Finding, CBP must first investigate a specific producer and gather evidence of forced labor before it can act. With the UFLPA, no investigation is needed. Goods linked to Xinjiang or a listed company are prohibited from the start, and the importer must prove otherwise. A separate law applies the same approach to goods made with North Korean labor.

The UFLPA did not replace Findings, and the two operate in parallel. Shipments imported on or after June 21, 2022 that would have fallen under a Xinjiang-related WRO are now processed under UFLPA procedures. The UFLPA also operates at a far larger scale. As of Oct. 21, 2026, CBP had stopped 44,651 shipments worth $4.14 billion under the law, according to its UFLPA enforcement statistics dashboard.

How Does CBP Issue a Section 307 Finding?

CBP issues a Finding in three stages. It reviews an allegation, weighs the evidence, and then publishes its decision.

From Forced Labor Allegation to CBP Review

Most Findings begin with an allegation. Private citizens, nongovernmental organizations, government agencies, and others can report suspected forced labor to CBP through its e-Allegations system, and CBP can also open an investigation on its own. If that investigation produces enough evidence to reach probable cause, CBP can issue a Finding.

CBP does not have to issue a WRO along the way. The agency states that “a Finding may or may not stem from a WRO.” Its December 2024 Finding against Kingtom Aluminio S.R.L. (89 FR 96265), an aluminum producer in the Dominican Republic, was issued with no WRO in place and took effect the day it was published.

Evidence Considered by CBP

CBP measures the evidence against the 11 International Labour Organization (ILO) indicators of forced labor:

• Abuse of vulnerability
• Deception
• Restriction of movement
• Isolation
• Physical and sexual violence
• Intimidation and threats
• Retention of identity documents
• Withholding of wages
• Debt bondage
• Abusive working and living conditions
• Excessive overtime

In the Kingtom case, CBP found seven of the 11, including deception, withholding of wages, physical and sexual violence, and excessive overtime.

Publication in the Customs Bulletin and Federal Register

CBP must publish each Finding in the Customs Bulletin and the Federal Register, and it also posts Findings on its enforcement dashboard. The regulation names the Treasury Secretary as the approving official, but CBP has since been delegated that authority, and Findings are now signed by the Executive Assistant Commissioner for Trade.

What Happens When Merchandise Is Subject to a Finding?

When goods are covered by a Finding, CBP seizes them unless the importer can establish that they are admissible. The importer has fewer options than under a WRO, and must provide extensive evidence against the forced labor claim.

Seizure and Forfeiture

CBP states that “shipments subject to Findings shall be seized, unless the importer establishes by satisfactory evidence that the merchandise is admissible,” citing its authority under 19 U.S.C. 1595a, 19 U.S.C. 1307, and 19 CFR 12.42(f). The case then goes to the Fines, Penalties and Forfeitures Officer (FPFO) at the port, who sends a notice of seizure to the importer. If the importer cannot show the goods were made without forced labor, they are forfeited to the government and destroyed.

Importer Options After a Seizure

Under a WRO, 19 CFR 12.44 lets importers export detained goods. A Finding removes that option, leaving three other pathways to resolution:

• Petition for relief. The importer asks the FPFO to release the goods. Under 19 CFR 171.2, the petition is due 30 days from the date the notice of seizure was mailed.
• Offer in compromise. The importer proposes to settle the case for a sum of money.
• Claim and cost bond. The importer moves the case into federal court, where a judge decides on forfeiture.

Scope of the Finding and Affected Merchandise

A Finding names a producer, a product type, and tariff codes, not a whole country. The Kingtom Finding names the producer, covers aluminum extrusions, profiles, and derivative products, and lists seven tariff subheadings followed by “any other relevant subheadings under Chapter 76.” Because of that catch-all phrase, the Finding can cover the producer’s aluminum products even when they are classified under a tariff code the Finding doesn’t list. 

Timing also determines which shipments a Finding reaches. It applies to goods imported on or after its effective date, and also to goods that arrived earlier but were still in CBP custody on that date. An importer with shipments held at the port when a Finding is published can therefore see those goods seized as well.

What Evidence Can Importers Use to Demonstrate Admissibility?

To get seized goods released, importers must prove they were not made with the forced labor the Finding names. Regulations set a minimum for that proof, and CBP expects considerably more.

Supply Chain Traceability

CBP organizes the evidence it expects around four questions:

• Who was involved at each stage of the supply chain, and how are those companies related?
• Where did in-house manufacturing, subassembly, and outsourced production happen?
• How were the goods sourced and processed in other countries?
• What components were used to make the goods, from raw material to finished product?

CBP does not provide a fixed checklist, noting that the evidence required will vary based on the facts and circumstances of the goods in question.

Production and Supplier Records

19 CFR 12.43 sets the minimum requirements for records, and CBP guidance raises the bar on each piece. Within three months of importation, the importer must file a certificate of origin stating that the labor named in the Finding was not used at any stage of production, with additional certificates if production crossed more than one country. A routine commercial certificate does not qualify, and CBP expects the certification to come from the last manufacturer or the exporter. The importer must also file a statement showing it made “every reasonable effort to determine the source of the merchandise and of every component thereof,” and that statement must come from the importer itself, not the supplier.

Due Diligence and Audit Evidence

On top of the certificate and statement, CBP expects evidence of supply chain due diligence and tracing. Our guide to Section 307 compliance explains how to build a program that produces it.

What CBP wants is a complete evidence package rather than any single document. Strong evidence should include:

• Supply chain mapping that identifies every producer and site involved
• The 12.43 certificate and statement described above
• Due diligence records, such as supplier assessments, audits against the ILO indicators, and documented corrective actions

CBP describes audits as “useful tools to help companies identify forced labor risks,” and assessments carry the most weight when mapping shows exactly which suppliers and facilities may be at risk.

Can a Section 307 Finding Be Modified or Revoked?

Yes. CBP can modify or revoke a Finding once the producer demonstrates that it has fully remediated the underlying forced labor conditions.

When a Modification or Revocation May Be Requested

Only the producer named in the Finding can ask CBP to modify or revoke it. To do so, the producer petitions CBP’s Forced Labor Division and submits evidence that it has fixed all forced labor conditions in its operations.

Importers cannot ask CBP to change the Finding itself. Their recourse is limited to their own seized shipments, through the petition, settlement, or court options described earlier. A producer’s petition does not pause those deadlines, so importers with seized goods should pursue their own case rather than wait for the Finding to be lifted. A revocation also does not reach back to goods already forfeited.

Evidence of Remediation

CBP says it “requires clear evidence demonstrating full remediation of forced labor conditions to modify a WRO or a Finding.” It frames remediation in three stages:

1. Identify. Review the supply chain with worker input against all 11 ILO indicators, backed by an independent audit that includes unannounced visits.
2. Correct. Carry out a corrective action plan built with workers. CBP does not prescribe specific corrective actions, but redress can include back wages and repayment of recruitment fees.
3. Prevent. Add internal controls, update the code of conduct with worker input, and maintain a grievance channel workers trust.

CBP expects the supporting audit to include a root cause analysis for each indicator, a review of payroll, hiring, and grievance systems, worker interviews in workers’ own languages using outside translators, and a zero-tolerance retaliation policy. It also asks for a list of workers owed repayment covering at least two years before the Finding took effect, and recommends a second audit once corrections are in place.

Past Revocations and Court Challenges

Revocations are possible, but the process typically takes months.

Producer	Product	Finding published	Finding revoked	Time in force
Top Glove Corporation Bhd	Disposable gloves	March 29, 2021 (86 FR 16380)	Sept. 10, 2021 (86 FR 50725)	About 5.5 months
Sime Darby Plantation Berhad	Palm oil and derivatives	Jan. 28, 2022 (87 FR 4635)	Feb. 3, 2023 (88 FR 7451)	About 12 months

Producers can also challenge a Finding in court. In September 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade vacated the Kingtom Finding and sent it back to CBP. In December 2025, the court denied the government’s request to reconsider. The court did not decide whether Kingtom used forced labor. It ruled only that CBP had not explained the basis for its Finding in enough detail, and it returned the case to CBP to address that. Because the outcome could still change the Finding’s status, importers should check CBP’s dashboard for the latest information.

How Should Companies Manage Finding Risk?

Findings are rare, but their consequences are severe, and they can arise without notice. Importers manage the risk by tracking enforcement, knowing their producers, keeping records ready, and addressing labor conditions before CBP does.

Monitor CBP Findings

CBP lists active enforcement actions on its WROs and Findings dashboard. As of Sept. 29, 2026, CBP was enforcing 60 WROs and eight Findings.

The dashboard has limits. Its data dictionary notes that modified or revoked actions drop off six months after the change, and that it does not show how many shipments each action has stopped.

Map High-Risk Supply Chains

Compliance teams should be able to name the actual producer behind each product, not just the seller or trading company. Findings name specific producers, so a supplier list will not reveal exposure, and as the Kingtom Finding shows, screening by tariff code alone may miss prohibited goods.

Maintain Traceability and Documentation

The key question is whether the business could assemble a complete submission, with the 12.43 certificates, statement, and tracing back to raw materials, within 30 days of a seizure notice. Those records often sit several tiers beyond the direct supplier and take far longer than a month to gather. Importers in higher-risk categories should keep that file current and organized by product and production stage, so responding to a seizure is a matter of compiling existing records rather than gathering them.

Address Forced Labor Indicators and Remediation

Importers should also know which ILO indicators their higher-risk production sites carry, and have a path to remediation as well as one to exit. Remediation evidence is what gets a Finding lifted, so the work that resolves an enforcement action is the same work that prevents one.

EcoVadis supports that work. EcoVadis Ratings assesses suppliers’ labor and human rights practices and tracks their corrective action plans, giving importers a consistent record across a large supplier base. Worker Voice gathers feedback directly from workers, the kind of engagement CBP’s remediation guidance calls for. Neither replaces product-level tracing, but they can support comprehensive due diligence.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a Section 307 Finding?
A Section 307 Finding is CBP’s formal determination that a producer’s goods were made with forced labor, which lets CBP seize covered goods and begin forfeiture.

What is the difference between a withhold release order (WRO) and a Finding?
A WRO lets CBP detain goods, and the importer can export them, destroy them, or prove admissibility within three months of importation. A Finding lets CBP seize goods; export is not permitted, and the importer can only contest or settle the seizure.

Does a Section 307 Finding mean goods will be seized?
Yes, CBP seizes any goods named in a Section 307 Finding unless the importer proves with satisfactory evidence that the goods are admissible.

Can an importer challenge a Section 307 Finding?
An importer can contest its own seized shipment by petitioning the FPFO within 30 days of the seizure notice, but only the producer can ask CBP to change the Finding itself.

Sources last verified: Checked against CBP, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Register, the ILO, and the U.S. Court of International Trade on Oct. 27, 2026.