RecordLens

Claim review. Product claims

Supported

The cited record supports the material proposition.

US Customs and Border Protection blocked a shipment of Uniqlo shirts at the Port of Los Angeles in January 2021 and ruled on 10 May 2021 that the company had not shown the shirts were free of forced labour.

About
Fast Retailing Co., Ltd.
Claim made by
Bloomberg, press report
Published
May 2021
Original
U.S. Blocked Uniqlo Shirts on Xinjiang Forced-Labor Concerns
Evidence score
63 How it was scored
Last reviewed
25 October 2026

Why this label

Bloomberg reports a CBP document dated 10 May 2021S1. It says the shipment was held in January at the Port of Los Angeles under an order targeting the state-owned Xinjiang Production and Construction CorpsS1. CBP found that Uniqlo failed to provide enough information to show the items were not produced in part by forced labourS1. The ruling turned on the burden of proof. It did not find that forced labour was used. The CBP ruling itself could not be retrieved from the CBP rulings database for this review, and no ruling number was found. The support rests on one established press report, which quotes the company's response to the decision.

Current procedural position

Detention in January 2021 and CBP ruling dated 10 May 2021 upholding itS1. No later court challenge was found.

Record supporting the assessment

blocked a shipment of Fast Retailing Co.’s Uniqlo shirts in January
S1 Tier C Bloomberg (via BloombergQuint), U.S. Blocked Uniqlo Shirts on Xinjiang Forced-Labor Concerns, Not shown. Cites a CBP ruling of 10 May 2021
failed to provide enough information to establish the items were not produced
S1 Tier C Bloomberg (via BloombergQuint), U.S. Blocked Uniqlo Shirts on Xinjiang Forced-Labor Concerns, Not shown. Cites a CBP ruling of 10 May 2021
happened at the Port of Los Angeles
S1 Tier C Bloomberg (via BloombergQuint), U.S. Blocked Uniqlo Shirts on Xinjiang Forced-Labor Concerns, Not shown. Cites a CBP ruling of 10 May 2021

Conflicting or limiting record

No record located that conflicts with this assessment.

Evidence score: 63 of 100

The score grades how well the record establishes this assessment. It is not a score of Fast Retailing Co., Ltd.. Score = source authority + directness + corroboration + procedural accuracy + currency + reproducibility.

ComponentPointsMaxReason
Source authorityIs the source competent to establish the proposition?1730An established press report of an agency ruling, not the ruling itself.
DirectnessDoes the source state the proposition or only discuss adjacent facts?1720The report states the detention and the ruling's reasoning.
CorroborationDo independent records support the same material point?515Only one report was read on the ruling.
Procedural accuracyDoes the record settle the procedural state the claim describes?1015An agency ruling, with no court challenge found.
CurrencyHas the record been checked against later developments?710No later change to the ruling was found in 2025 or 2026 searches.
ReproducibilityCan a reader locate the passage and repeat the assessment?710The report is public. The ruling number is not given.
Total63100

Timeline

  1. CBP holds the shipment at the Port of Los AngelesS1
  2. CBP ruling finds the documents insufficientS1

Related cases

  • US Customs and Border Protection and UniqloUS Customs and Border Protection. Regulatory. Not published.Stage: Ruling dated 10 May 2021 upholding the detention.
    • CBP finds the documents insufficient to show the shirts were not made in part with forced labourS1

Responses

  • Fast Retailing Co., Ltd., May 2021: Uniqlo said it was disappointed by the CBP decision and had strong mechanisms to spot rights violations.S1

Revision history

  • Assessment first published with label Supported.

Have a record that changes this assessment? See corrections and responses.

Sources

  1. S1Tier C U.S. Blocked Uniqlo Shirts on Xinjiang Forced-Labor ConcernsBloomberg (via BloombergQuint). Press report. Not shown. Cites a CBP ruling of 10 May 2021.Reports the detention, the CBP reasoning and the company response. It does not show a ruling number or a byline.

Other claims about Fast Retailing Co., Ltd.