UFLPA: why module buyers need a polysilicon trace

The latest list update

On October 29, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security, as chair of the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force (FLETF), published the updated UFLPA Entity List at 91 FR 68159. The update "adds three new entities", all genomics and life-science companies, and it supersedes the list published on August 3, 2026. The consolidated register merges four lists that the law requires, from entities in Xinjiang that make goods with forced labor to entities that "source material from" Xinjiang through government labor programs. Several entries already on the list carry "Silicon" or "Solar" in their names.

The notice warns that the list "should not be interpreted as an exhaustive list." Listed companies can ask to be removed; the FLETF decides by majority vote, and its decision "is not appealable", although a new request with new information will be considered.

What the law presumes

The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (Public Law 117-78, approved December 23, 2021) tells the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to presume that goods "mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part" in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, or by a listed entity, are barred under 19 U.S.C. 1307 and "not entitled to entry at any of the ports of the United States." The DHS notice says the presumption has applied since June 21, 2022.

The law also names the sectors CBP should watch most closely. Its list of high-priority sectors "shall include cotton, tomatoes, and polysilicon." Polysilicon is the starting material for the wafers, cells and modules most U.S. buyers install.

How an importer rebuts it

The presumption gives way only if CBP determines that the importer of record has "fully complied" with the FLETF guidance, has "completely and substantively responded to all inquiries" from CBP, and shows "by clear and convincing evidence" that the goods were not made "wholly or in part by forced labor." Each time CBP grants such an exception, the law requires a public report to Congress within 30 days.

CBP's older section 307 rules show the kind of evidence the process is built around. Under 19 CFR 12.42(e), port directors "withhold release" when information "reasonably but not conclusively indicates" forced labor. 19 CFR 12.43 then gives the importer three months after importation to file a certificate of origin from the foreign seller, plus an extra certificate when the goods were made in another country, and a statement showing "every reasonable effort to determine the source of the merchandise and of every component thereof."

What it means if you are buying modules

• Assembly country does not settle it. The statute's test is "wholly or in part". On that wording, a module assembled outside China can still be in scope if an upstream input, such as polysilicon, came from Xinjiang or from a listed entity.
• The importer of record carries the burden. Proof of a clean chain, and the cost of a shipment held at the port, sit with whoever enters the goods. If you import directly, your supply contract should say who pays when a container is held.
• Ask for the trace before you commit. Documents that follow the material from polysilicon to wafer, cell and module are what an importer would need to answer CBP inquiries. Ask what exists for the specific lot, not for the brand in general.
• The list moves. Updates are published in the Federal Register as they happen; the October 29 notice is the latest we found when we checked on November 13, 2026.

This is a different test from the FEOC rules for tax credits, covered in our MACR safe-harbor note, and from the polysilicon tariff covered in our Section 232 note. A module can pass one of these tests and fail another.