US Court of International Trade Says It Has Jurisdiction Over China’s Ninestar’s Lawsuit Vs. US Gov.

[toner]

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 30 opinion said that it is likely to have jurisdiction over Chinese exporter Ninestar Corp.’s challenge to its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Following Ninestar’s motion for a preliminary injunction against its placement on the list, Judge Gary Katzmann ruled more narrowly, holding Ninestar is likely to show that jurisdiction is proper under Section 1581(i), the court’s “residual” jurisdiction, which covers any civil action regarding “embargoes or other quantitative restrictions.

Click here to download the latest!
CIT Says It Likely Has Jurisdiction Over Ninestar’s Lawsuit Against UFLPA 11 30 2023
Excerpt: Because the UFLPA is a “law . . . providing for . . . embargoes,” 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(1), the CIT has exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to agency action implementing the UFLPA under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(1)(C)–(D). In the interest of resolving important questions of first impression and promoting judicial economy before any further proceedings, the court therefore concludes that Plaintiffs are likely to establish subject matter jurisdiction in this case under § 1581(i)(1)(C)–(D). In so doing, the court makes no other disposition and no finding of fact. The court expresses no view on the other contentions regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which are left to any further proceedings. ” While the U.S. said the UFLPA Entity List does not create an embargo since it establishes a rebuttable presumption, Katzmann said the court has exerted jurisdiction over similar embargoes where exemptions or reconsideration are granted.

Vs.

[Author]

November 30, 2023 at 7:43 PM