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.
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
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).
The Court of International Trade doesn't have subject-matter jurisdiction over the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force's (FLETF) addition of entities to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 3 motion to dismiss. Seeking dismissal of a case filed by Chinese printer cartridge manufacturer Ninestar Corp., the government said that because the FLETF's decision is neither an embargo nor a quantitive restriction, the court doesn't have jurisdiction over the proceeding under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction (Ninestar Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00182).
Chinese printer cartridge maker Ninestar Corp., along with eight of its Zhuhai-based subsidiaries, opposed the U.S.'s motion to extend the time to file a response to their request for a preliminary injunction in a case against their addition to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List. Ninestar said the government, in asking for a total of 62 more days, failed to show "good cause" for needing a delay to address "even one element of the preliminary injunction test" (Ninestar Corporation v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force (FLETF) violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to provide any rationale for adding Chinese printer cartridge manufacturer Ninestar Corp., along with eight of its Zhuhai-based subsidiaries, to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List, the companies, led by Ninestar, argued (Ninestar Corp., et al. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00182).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's recent ruling in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S., which found that CBP violated importer Royal Brush's due process rights by not giving it access to business confidential information in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion proceeding, "may have broader implications," including on forced labor issues, customs lawyer Lawrence Friedman said in a July 28 blog post. If the decision "applies generally, it may require that" CBP make its record fully available, including BCI, which would be an "interesting unintended consequence" of this Enforce and Protect Act case, Friedman said.