The order is called a Withhold Release Order, or WRO. It comes from Section 307 of the US Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1307), which bars goods made with forced labour from entering the United States. CBP can issue one against a named factory anywhere in the world the moment it has reasonable evidence. It does not need a conviction, a hearing, or notice to the brands buying from that factory. On 23 June it issued two, against Needle Craft Ltd. and Casual Wear Apparel LLC, both owned by Jordan's Needle Craft Clothing Industry. From that day, every shipment traced to those two plants is detained at every US port of entry.
What a forced-labour hold does to your shipment
Once CBP holds a container under a WRO, the importer of record has three moves, and only three. Export the goods back out of the country. Destroy them. Or prove to CBP that no forced labour touched the supply chain. There is no counter where you argue you did not know. The party named on the entry pays for the held container, the port storage, and the order that now misses its date, while it works toward one of those three exits. For a small or mid-size importer, one held container is a cash-flow event, not a filing.
CBP issues these orders against specific factories, and the Jordan case is this month's example. The reason a China buyer should read past the apparel headline is that the same tool, paired with a far stronger one, points straight at Chinese supply chains. The importer of record carries the liability either way, the same party CBP pursues when duties or penalties are owed on an entry.
Why China importers carry the heaviest version
The stronger tool is the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, the UFLPA, in force since 2022. It changed who has to prove what. Under an ordinary WRO, CBP needs evidence first. Under the UFLPA, any product with a link to China's Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, or to a company on the UFLPA Entity List, is presumed to be made with forced labour and barred from entry unless the importer rebuts that presumption with "clear and convincing evidence." That is the highest civil standard of proof short of a criminal trial, and the importer carries it from the day the goods are stopped.
The scale is not theoretical. Since the UFLPA took effect, CBP has reviewed more than 18,000 shipments worth about $3.81 billion (USD). In its 2025 fiscal year it stopped roughly 7,325 shipments, more than 50% above the year before. Of those, only about 6.5% were released into US commerce. The rest were sent back, destroyed, or left stuck. Cotton, polysilicon used in solar, and tomato products are the named high-risk inputs, but the Entity List and CBP's tracing reach far past them, into electronics, auto parts, PVC flooring, and any finished good that carries a flagged material somewhere upstream.
The trap is that the forced-labour link usually sits two or three tiers above the factory you pay, in a yarn mill, a smelter, or a polysilicon plant you have never seen. CBP traces it anyway. The detention lands on the importer who placed the order, not on the factory that hid the source.
What to check before your container is the one held
Map your supply chain past the factory you pay. Know where the cotton, the aluminium, the solar cells, the raw input actually come from, and get it from your supplier in writing. A factory that will not name its material sources, or hands you a name you cannot verify, is showing you where your risk sits. When CBP asks for clear and convincing evidence, a paper trail you cannot stand behind is worse than none.
This is what an on-the-ground check is built for. A verified agent inside the plant can record who supplies the cotton or the cells, photograph the line, and confirm the company on your contract is the company doing the work, GPS-stamped, before a deposit moves. A buyer working from a quote and a few photos cannot see the second tier. The auditor standing on the floor can, and that record is exactly what you produce if a hold ever lands. We set out the full method in our guide to verifying a Chinese supplier before you commit.
The EU is building the same wall
The European Union has its own version arriving. The EU Forced Labour Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2024/3015) entered into force on 13 December 2024 and applies from 14 December 2027; the European Commission published its compliance guidelines on 14 June 2026. It bans any product made with forced labour from the EU market regardless of where it was made, and unlike the US model it also reaches goods produced inside the EU. The textile sector, where this Jordan case sits, is already drawing EU scrutiny through the separate textile destruction ban and digital product passport. If you sell into both the US and the EU, you are heading toward two forced-labour regimes, not one, and both ask the same question: can you prove where your materials came from.
Sources: WWD / Sourcing Journal, CBP issues Withhold Release Orders against Jordan suppliers Needle Craft Ltd. and Casual Wear Apparel LLC over forced labour (23 June 2026). Just-Style, US Customs detains Jordan garment supplier goods on labour abuse. Customs & International Trade Law Blog, CBP issues two new WROs against Jordan garment factories: what importers need to know (23 June 2026) — the export / destroy / prove-no-forced-labour options and the seven ILO indicators. US Customs and Border Protection, UFLPA enforcement statistics — more than 18,000 shipments reviewed (~$3.81bn), ~7,325 shipments stopped in FY2025, ~6.5% release rate, and the rebuttable presumption with the "clear and convincing evidence" standard. European Commission, Forced Labour Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2024/3015) — in force 13 December 2024, applies from 14 December 2027, Commission guidelines published 14 June 2026.