BBG原文:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-19/u-s-blocked-uniqlo-shirts-on-xinjiang-forced-labor-concerns
[真係ban]Uniqlo襯衫未能證明無使用新疆棉 美國海關不給過
魚翅航空無女
76 回覆
164 Like
0 Dislike
唔識講大話
抵撚死, 仲立場中立話說最近想買衫 有咩平平哋嘅黃店推介 
又或者有冇近似 U 記嘅舖推介
又或者有冇近似 U 記嘅舖推介
抵撚死
The U.S. customs document notes that Uniqlo had argued and provided proof that the raw cotton used to produce the shirts didn’t originate from Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps. Still, Uniqlo failed to provide enough information to establish the items were not produced in part by forced labor in China’s far west Xinjiang region, according to the customs agency.
而家係美國海關唔鳩信你
而家係美國海關唔鳩信你
美國識玩
即係國際企業只能避免用全中國所有棉花
即係國際企業只能避免用全中國所有棉花
因為u記只能證實d棉didn’t originate from Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps 但冇話唔係來自far west Xinjiang region
其實d棉冇BCI認證 基本上都來自不合法地區
其實d棉冇BCI認證 基本上都來自不合法地區
https://rulings.cbp.gov/ruling/H318182
Uniqlo has provided evidence to establish that the raw cotton used to produce the subject cotton garments was sourced from entities outside of China, (specifically three (3) cotton suppliers in Australia, Namoi Cotton Alliance, Auscott Marketing Pty Ltd., and Queensland Cotton Corporation PTY LTD, three (3) cotton suppliers in the United States, J.G. Boswell Company, Bruce Allbright Agency Inc. and Allenberg Cotton Co. (a division of Louis Dreyfus Company LLC) and one (1) cotton supplier in Brazil, Agropecuaria Maggi Ltda.) ; however, Uniqlo has not provided substantial evidence to establish that the entities within the XPCC that processed that cotton into the subject goods did so without the use of forced labor.
In the detention letter issued January 5, 2021, the Port indicated that evidence such as “list of production steps and production record for the yarn, including records that identify the cotton and cotton producer of the raw cotton. Transportation documents from cotton grower to yarn maker. Supporting documents related to employee's that picked the cotton, timecards or the like, wage payment receipts, and daily process reports that relate to the raw cotton sold to the yarn produce.” would be required to establish that the subject goods were not produced by the use of forced labor.
However, our examination of the evidence submitted by Uniqlo reveals that it was not responsive to the Port’s request and does to establish that the subject goods were not produced using forced labor. Specifically, regarding the various entities within the XPCC that processed the subject cotton garments, there are substantial deficiencies:
Uniqlo has provided evidence to establish that the raw cotton used to produce the subject cotton garments was sourced from entities outside of China, (specifically three (3) cotton suppliers in Australia, Namoi Cotton Alliance, Auscott Marketing Pty Ltd., and Queensland Cotton Corporation PTY LTD, three (3) cotton suppliers in the United States, J.G. Boswell Company, Bruce Allbright Agency Inc. and Allenberg Cotton Co. (a division of Louis Dreyfus Company LLC) and one (1) cotton supplier in Brazil, Agropecuaria Maggi Ltda.) ; however, Uniqlo has not provided substantial evidence to establish that the entities within the XPCC that processed that cotton into the subject goods did so without the use of forced labor.
In the detention letter issued January 5, 2021, the Port indicated that evidence such as “list of production steps and production record for the yarn, including records that identify the cotton and cotton producer of the raw cotton. Transportation documents from cotton grower to yarn maker. Supporting documents related to employee's that picked the cotton, timecards or the like, wage payment receipts, and daily process reports that relate to the raw cotton sold to the yarn produce.” would be required to establish that the subject goods were not produced by the use of forced labor.
However, our examination of the evidence submitted by Uniqlo reveals that it was not responsive to the Port’s request and does to establish that the subject goods were not produced using forced labor. Specifically, regarding the various entities within the XPCC that processed the subject cotton garments, there are substantial deficiencies:
[ ] Cotton yarn producer. No cotton yarn production/processing/procedures records reflecting actual cotton yarn production were submitted.
[ ] Cotton Fabric Weaver and Dyer. No cotton fabric weaving/dying processing or production records were submitted.
[ ] (Sewing Company which made the finished garment). No production or processing records that reflect cutting and sewing of the cotton fabric in order to make the finished garment were submitted.
[ ] Cotton yarn spinner. No cotton yarn production processing/procedures records reflecting actual cotton yarn production were submitted.
[ ] Cotton Yarn Spinner. No cotton yarn production/processing/procedures records reflecting actual yarn production were submitted.
[ ] Cotton Fabric Weaver and Dyer. No weaving production or dying processing records of the cotton fabric were submitted.
[ ] Cotton yarn Spinner. No cotton yarn production/processing/ procedures records reflecting actual yarn production were submitted.
[ ] Cotton Yarn Spinner in China. No cotton yarn production/processing/ procedures records reflecting actual yarn production were submitted.
[ ] Cotton Yarn Spinner. No cotton yarn production/processing/procedures records reflecting actual cotton yarn production were submitted.
The “Cutting and Laying Up” fabric records and the Garment Inspection Daily Report of [ ] fails to provide adequate information to substantiate that the production process of the finished garments was completed by the manufacturer or their employees. Further, the records do not reflect the actual composition of the fabric.
The certificate submitted by [ ] does not reflect the specific products produced, the parties involved, the dates of transaction, or location of the factory.
The invoices submitted by [ ] to [ ] do not reflect a fabric composition percentage.
The delivery note submitted by [ ] reflects a future delivery date of 10/23/2021.
Invoices submitted by [ ] to [ ] do not reflect a fabric composition percentage.
Code of Conduct Letter submitted by [ ], dated 08/09/2016, is not current.
Although Uniqlo has provided evidence relating to the sale, acquisition, source location, transportation, and delivery of the raw cotton used to produce the subject cotton garments, as exemplified above, it has not provided any probative evidence to establish that their imported cotton garments were not produced in part by forced labor by the XPCC.
[ ] Cotton Fabric Weaver and Dyer. No cotton fabric weaving/dying processing or production records were submitted.
[ ] (Sewing Company which made the finished garment). No production or processing records that reflect cutting and sewing of the cotton fabric in order to make the finished garment were submitted.
[ ] Cotton yarn spinner. No cotton yarn production processing/procedures records reflecting actual cotton yarn production were submitted.
[ ] Cotton Yarn Spinner. No cotton yarn production/processing/procedures records reflecting actual yarn production were submitted.
[ ] Cotton Fabric Weaver and Dyer. No weaving production or dying processing records of the cotton fabric were submitted.
[ ] Cotton yarn Spinner. No cotton yarn production/processing/ procedures records reflecting actual yarn production were submitted.
[ ] Cotton Yarn Spinner in China. No cotton yarn production/processing/ procedures records reflecting actual yarn production were submitted.
[ ] Cotton Yarn Spinner. No cotton yarn production/processing/procedures records reflecting actual cotton yarn production were submitted.
The “Cutting and Laying Up” fabric records and the Garment Inspection Daily Report of [ ] fails to provide adequate information to substantiate that the production process of the finished garments was completed by the manufacturer or their employees. Further, the records do not reflect the actual composition of the fabric.
The certificate submitted by [ ] does not reflect the specific products produced, the parties involved, the dates of transaction, or location of the factory.
The invoices submitted by [ ] to [ ] do not reflect a fabric composition percentage.
The delivery note submitted by [ ] reflects a future delivery date of 10/23/2021.
Invoices submitted by [ ] to [ ] do not reflect a fabric composition percentage.
Code of Conduct Letter submitted by [ ], dated 08/09/2016, is not current.
Although Uniqlo has provided evidence relating to the sale, acquisition, source location, transportation, and delivery of the raw cotton used to produce the subject cotton garments, as exemplified above, it has not provided any probative evidence to establish that their imported cotton garments were not produced in part by forced labor by the XPCC.
好快到無良印品 
馬莎啦
U記有提供證明原材料係非支那，但無講到由raw cotton變成yarn係唔係非支那
U記一係棄貨，一係搬返去支那散
打響第一槍後就好玩勒
U記一係棄貨，一係搬返去支那散
打響第一槍後就好玩勒
呢d又係無五毛
代表U記暗裡依然繼續用新疆棉?
以前都買過間野d股票
都賺過少少
其實Uniqlo 同香港真係好近
控股係香港上市
其中一間最大嘅工廠又係港資
都賺過少少
其實Uniqlo 同香港真係好近
控股係香港上市
其中一間最大嘅工廠又係港資
1. U記棉原材料係非支那(起碼佢呢批係)
2. U記未能提供文件說服美國海關，由raw cotton轉成yarn等等材料，係無涉及新疆建設兵團
3. U記所提供嘅部份文件(Code of Conduct)唔係最新
所以美國海關唔放
2. U記未能提供文件說服美國海關，由raw cotton轉成yarn等等材料，係無涉及新疆建設兵團
3. U記所提供嘅部份文件(Code of Conduct)唔係最新
所以美國海關唔放
esq？
呢d又係無atna侵粉 
On January 5, 2021, the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach ( “the Port”) detained a shipment of cotton garments imported by Uniqlo Co., Ltd. (Uniqlo) for violating CBP’s Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (“XPCC”) Withhold Release Order (WRO) which prohibits the importation of all cotton and cotton products produced by the XPCC, and its subordinate and affiliated entities, as well as any products that are made in whole or in part with, or derived from, that cotton, such as apparel, garments, and textiles.
