- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Click here or photos below to download the latest on the US Vs. Ninestar lawsuit.
Ninestar Corporation Vs United States
Excerpt: Congress enacted the UFLPA to highlight China’s abhorrent practices, combat the PRC’s systematic use of forced labor in Xinjiang, and prevent goods produced in whole orin part by this repressive system from entering the United States. FLETF Strategy, at 6-7 (citations omitted). The UFLPA directs the FLETF to do exactly what it did here, to prepare a list of entities “working with the government of Xinjiang to recruit, transport, transfer, harbor or receive forced labor or Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Kyrgys, or members of other persecuted groups out of Xinjiang” UFLPA, Section 2(d)(2)(B)(ii).
Excerpt: The FLETF did so following its Standard Operating Procedures, by determining that there i} AR000221, that the criteria set forth in the statute were satisfied. There is, therefore, a strong public and Government interest in ensuring that the prohibitions in section 307 and the UFLPA are enforced. Finally, the balance of the hardships weighs strongly against any injunctive relief. Any monetary or reputational harm to the plaintiffs, which resulted from their (correct) inclusion on the UFLPA Entity List, must be weighed against the entry of merchandise that the United States has reason to believe is the product of forced labor. Balancing that concern against the plaintiffs’ asserted financial and reputation harm weighs heavily against imposition of an injunction here. Because plaintiffs fail to establish any of the factors which would support entry of a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs’ motion should be denied. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Court dismiss this action or, in the alternative, ask the Court to deny plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.