Chinese printer cartridge exporter Ninetsar Corp. filed its motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade on Jan. 22 against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Made public Jan. 31, the brief emphasizes arguments already made in support of its motion for a preliminary injunction (see 2312180057) (Ninestar Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00182).
Chinese printer cartridge exporter Ninestar Corp. argued that it didn't need to exhaust its administrative remedies regarding its listing on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List before seeking judicial review because the case arises under the Administrative Procedure Act. As a result, exhaustion is required only when an agency rule requires appeal before review, Ninestar said (Ninestar Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00182).
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.
NEW YORK -- The Court of International Trade held oral argument on Jan. 18 in Chinese exporter Ninestar's case challenging its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, addressing the company's motion for a preliminary injunction against its listing and its bid to unseal and unredact the record in the case (Ninestar Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00182).
The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 16 order allowed some changes proposed by the U.S. to the amended protective order (APO) in exporter Ninestar Corp.'s case against its addition to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, but it denied a motion from Ninestar to amend the protective order (Ninestar Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00182).
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.
The government hasn't given a "compelling justification" for why it used "secret evidence" to add Ninestar Corp. to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, Ninestar argued Jan. 15 (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
The "low standard of proof" that the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force used in adding exporter Ninestar Corp. to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List violates the requirements of UFLPA as written in the statute, Ninestar argued in a Jan. 10 supplemental brief at the Court of International Trade (Ninestar Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00182).
The U.S. defended its right not to turn over parts of the administrative record in a case on the decision to add exporter Ninestar Corp. to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, saying that the record is protected by the "informer's privilege" or is "law-enforcement sensitive" (Ninestar Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00182).
A less stringent "reasonable cause" standard for adding companies to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List is justified on statutory and policy grounds, the U.S. told the Court of International Trade in a brief opposing Chinese exporter Ninestar Corp.'s motion for a preliminary injunction. Using a higher standard, such as a preponderance of the evidence standard, for making listing decisions, would undermine the UFLPA's goal of placing a burden on exporters to show that their goods are not made with forced labor (Ninestar Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00182).