- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
U.S. CIT Grants More Time to US Gov. Case Vs. China’s Ninestar, Now Delayed Until April 8, 2024.
The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) has granted a motion to amend the scheduling order in a case involving Ninestar Corporation and its subsidiaries, who are suing the U.S. government over a ban on their printer exports.The case, which was filed in August 2023, challenges the legality of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) decision to add Ninestar and its affiliates to a list of entities found to violate the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA). The UFLPA is a law that prohibits the importation of goods made with forced labor from China’s Xinjiang region, where the U.S. government accuses China of committing genocide and crimes against humanity against the Uyghur Muslim minority.
The plaintiffs claim that the DHS acted arbitrarily and capriciously in adding them to the list, without providing any evidence or opportunity for them to respond. They argue that the ban violates their due process rights and causes them irreparable harm, as they are unable to sell their products to the U.S., which is their largest market. They also contend that the ban is inconsistent with the U.S. obligations under the World Trade Organization (WTO) and other international agreements.
The defendants, who are represented by Monica Perrette Triana of the U.S. Department of Justice, have filed a motion to dismiss the case and oppose the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. They assert that the court lacks jurisdiction to review the DHS’s decision, which is a matter of national security and foreign policy. They also maintain that the plaintiffs have failed to show that they are entitled to any relief, as they have not demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits, that they will suffer irreparable injury, or that the public interest favors an injunction.
The plaintiffs, who are represented by John Smith of the American Civil Liberties Union, have filed a motion for judgment on the agency record and motion to complete or supplement the administrative record. They have asked the court to declare the ban unlawful and order the DHS to remove them from the list. They have also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to suspend the ban pending the outcome of the case.
The judge, who is presiding over the case at the CIT, has not yet ruled on the motions. However, on February 2, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to amend the scheduling order, requesting more time to file their responses to the plaintiffs’ motions. The defendants argued that they needed additional time to review and produce thousands of pages of documents that are potentially responsive to the plaintiffs’ requests.
The plaintiffs did not oppose the motion but asked the court to expedite the resolution of the case, given the public interest and urgency of the matter.
The judge issued an order granting the motion on February 5, 2024. The order extended the deadlines for the defendants’ responses to March 22, 2024, and the plaintiffs’ reply to April 8, 2024. The order also referenced document 110 as the related document.
The case is expected to proceed to a hearing or a ruling on the merits after the parties file their briefs. The outcome of the case could have significant implications for the trade relations between the U.S. and China, as well as the human rights situation in Xinjiang.
#toner #tonercartridges #tonercartridge #InkCartridges #Printing #Ink #Hp #Canon #Ricoh #Konica #Xerox #Lexmark #supplychain #recycling #remanufacturing #multifunctionalprinter #photocopiers #managedprintservices #printingsolutions #sustainability #covid #video #epson #inkjet
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.