Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top 20 stories published in 2023. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference numbers.
The U.S. said in a Dec. 15 motion to dismiss that CBP has discretion in deciding how to pursue investigations on forced labor allegations, including how long those investigations may take, how much information CBP will reveal and whether action will be taken at all (International Rights Advocates v. Alejandro Mayorkas, CIT # 23-00165).
A review of the administrative record behind the addition of Ninestar to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List shows the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force (FLETF) had no basis for the listing, Ninestar argued in a Dec. 15 brief in support of its bid for a preliminary injunction (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 8 denied the government's motion to dismiss Chinese printer cartridge exporter Ninestar's suit against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List following a court order finding that CIT has the jurisdiction to hear challenges to inclusion on the UFLPA Entity List. Judge Gary Katzmann said the motion was moot, denying it without prejudice to a renewed motion to dismiss after Ninestar's filing of its amended complaint (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
The Court of International Trade doesn't have jurisdiction to hear importer Southern Cross Seafoods' challenge to the National Marine Fisheries Service's rejection of its application for preapproval to import Chilean sea bass, the court ruled Dec. 7. Judge Timothy Reif said that the agency's decision, issued under the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act of 1984 (AMLRCA), doesn't constitute an "embargo or other quantitative restriction," barring jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction.
The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 6 order postponed a hearing on Chinese exporter Ninestar Corp.'s motion for a preliminary injunction in the company's suit against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. The parties asked for a delay in the hearing while they negotiate a process for the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force to consider a request for removal from the UFLPA Entity List by Ninestar (see 2312050023) (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
Chinese exporter Ninestar Corp. moved at the Court of International Trade to unseal and unredact the administrative record in its case against the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force's (FLETF) decision to add the company to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Ninestar said that while the trade court's recent order mandating disclosure to Ninestar's counsel of the government's evidentiary record marked some progress, the company's counsel said they remain "hobbled" since they can't share these materials with their client (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
The Court of International Trade's recent decision that it has subject matter jurisdiction in a challenge to an addition to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List "directly addresses" a jurisdictional issue raised by the trade court in a separate action, importer Southern Cross said in a Dec. 1 notice of supplemental authority. CIT's ruling in Ninestar Corp. v. U.S. shows that the court has jurisdiction to hear the importer's case on the National Marine Fisheries Service's rejection of importer Southern Cross Seafoods' application for preapproval to import Chilean sea bass, the brief said (Southern Cross Seafoods v. United States, CIT # 22-00299).
Chinese exporter Ninestar Corp. is likely to show that the Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over the company's challenge to its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the trade court ruled in a Nov. 30 opinion.
The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 30 opinion said that it is likely to have jurisdiction over Chinese exporter Ninestar Corp.'s challenge to its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Following Ninestar's motion for a preliminary injunction against its placement on the list, Judge Gary Katzmann ruled more narrowly, holding Ninestar is likely to show that jurisdiction is proper under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, which covers any civil action regarding "embargoes or other quantitative restrictions." While the U.S. said the UFLPA Entity List does not create an embargo since it establishes a rebuttable presumption, Katzmann said the court has exerted jurisdiction over similar embargoes where exemptions or reconsideration are granted.