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).
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).
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).
U.S. solar cell maker Auxin Solar and solar module designer Concept Clean Energy launched a lawsuit at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 29 to contest the Commerce Department's pause of antidumping and countervailing duties on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells and modules from Southeast Asian found to be circumventing the AD/CVD orders on these products from China (Auxin Solar v. U.S., CIT # 23-00274).
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.