- This topic is empty.
More Useless Motions Filed By China’s Ninestar.
Motions: FLETF’s Low Standard Of Proof Conflicts With The UFLPA. Agency fact finding presumptively requires a preponderance standard. Neither the UFLPA’s rebuttable presumption nor CBP’s section 307 practice supports FLETF’s standard. The OFAC and BIS lists are not analogous to the UFLPA. Foreign affairs deference plays no role here. The Government’s appeal to the UFLPA’s “purpose” is meritless. FLETF Applied The UFLPA Retroactively. The Government Ignores Ninestar’s Arguments Regarding The Inadequacy Of FLETF’s Explanation.
Opinion: Ninestar has been fighting a legal battle with the U.S. government over a ban on its products due to alleged forced labor in Xinjiang. The ban was imposed under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA), which prohibits goods made with forced labor from entering the U.S. market.
Ninestar and its seven subsidiaries were placed on the UFLPA Entity List in June 2023, effectively blocking their exports to the U.S. Ninestar filed a lawsuit and a motion for a preliminary injunction in the U.S. Court of International Trade in August 2023, challenging the validity and legality of the government’s decision.
Ninestar claimed that the decision was based on insufficient evidence and a low standard of proof, and that it caused irreparable harm to its business and reputation.
Ninestar also argued that the decision was retroactive, as it applied to products that were manufactured and shipped before the UFLPA went into effect. Ninestar has been seeking an urgent injunction to suspend the ban until the court rules on the merits of the case.
However, the U.S. government has opposed Ninestar’s motion, asserting that the ban was justified and necessary to prevent human rights abuses in Xinjiang. The government also contended that Ninestar failed to show that it did not use forced labor in its supply chains, and that it did not suffer any irreparable harm from the ban.
The court has not yet issued a decision on Ninestar’s motion, but the case is expected to continue in the coming months. The outcome of the case could have significant implications for Ninestar, its customers, and the printer industry as a whole.
AuthorJanuary 13, 2024 at 4:09 PM
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.