The U.S. asked the Court of International Trade to treat "certain portions of the administrative record as highly sensitive documents" in a case against Chinese printer cartridge maker Ninestar Corp.'s addition to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Following a spat on whether to allow the government to amend the protective order in the suit, the U.S. is now asking for certain protections for information on the record since, if revealed, the information "could pose a danger of physical harm to certain persons" (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 24 order granted the U.S. motion to enter an amended protective order in Chinese printer cartridge maker Ninestar Corp.'s case against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. The order dismissed Ninestar's motion to compel the unredacted administrative record as moot, while clarifying that the order was issued "without prejudice to the parties' rights to petition the court to further modify the terms of the APO" or their right to challenge the designation of materials as confidential under the APO (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
The government hasn't justified its decision to keep a vast majority of the information confidential as part of Chinese printer cartridge maker Ninestar Corp.'s case against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, Ninestar argued. Filing its opposition to the U.S.'s motion to enter an amended protective order on Oct. 23 at the Court of International Trade, the exporter said the motion would "give the Government essentially unreviewable discretion to seal information, placing it beyond Ninestar's review" and is just "another bid for delay and distraction" (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
The U.S. asked for an amended protective order in a case brought by Chinese printer cartridge maker Ninestar Corp. to challenge its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. The request comes on the heels of Ninestar's request for the Court of International Trade to compel production of the confidential information used in the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force's review of Ninestar (see 2310180025) (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
Chinese printer cartridge manufacturer Ninestar Corp. urged the Court of International Trade to order the U.S. to submit the full, unredacted administrative record relating to the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force's (FLETF's) decision to add Ninestar to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Even though the court has entered a protective order in the case, the government redacted over 99% of its submitted record (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
US Offers 'Desperate Reaches' to Fend Off Injunction in Case on UFLPA Entity Listing, Company Argues
The U.S. failed to fulfill its "simple but fundamental obligation to explain itself" in a lawsuit brought by a Chinese printer cartridge maker challenging its addition to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the company, Ninestar Corp., said in a reply brief supporting its motion for a preliminary injunction against the listing. Ninestar dubbed the government's response to the PI motion a series of "distractions and desperate reaches," including the U.S. claim that the Court of International Trade lacks jurisdiction because a presumptive ban on Ninestar's goods is not an "embargo" (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
The U.S. opposed an expedited briefing schedule from Chinese printer cartridge manufacturer Ninestar Corp. in the company's case against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Ninestar's motion would hold the government's motion to dismiss in abeyance pending resolution of the company's bid for a preliminary injunction. The U.S. said "it is reversible error for the Court to delay consideration of its jurisdiction until after ruling on the motion for a preliminary injunction" (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
Trade lawyers and importers are wondering how the anti-stockpiling element of a two-year pause on trade remedy circumvention deposits will be enforced.
The U.S. filed a consent motion for 21 more days to file a motion to dismiss a case from International Rights Advocates seeking to compel DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Acting CBP Commissioner Troy Miller to respond to allegations that cocoa imports from Cote d'Ivore were made with forced labor. If granted, the motion to dismiss would be due Nov. 6 (International Rights Advocates v. Mayorkas, CIT # 23-00165).
Chinese printer cartridge maker Ninestar Corp. has until Nov. 7 to reply to the U.S. motion to dismiss Ninestar’s suit against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the Court of International Trade said Oct. 4. Judge Gary Katzmann said the reply can include a response regarding the company's motion for a preliminary injunction (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).