Slide 1
Slide 2
Slide 3
Slide 5
Slide 4
Slide 6
Slide 7
Slide 8
Slide 9
Slide 10
Slide 11
Slide 12
Slide 13
Slide 14
Slide 16
Slide 17
Slide 18
Slide 19
Slide 20
Slide 21
Slide 23
Slide 24
Slide 24
Slide 25
Slide 26
Slide 27
Slide 28
Slide 29
Slide 30
Slide 31
Slide 32
Slide 33
Slide 34
Slide 35
Slide 36
Slide 37
Slide 38
Slide 39
Slide 40
Slide 41
Slide 42
Slide 43
Slide 44
Slide 45
Slide 46
Slide 47
Slide 48
Slide 49
Slide 50
Slide 51
Slide 52
Slide 53
Slide 54
Slide 54
Slide 55
Slide 56
Slide 57
Slide 58
Slide 58
Slide 59
Slide 59
Slide 60
Slide 61
Slide 61
Slide 62
Slide 63

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

Toner News Mobile › Forums › Toner News Main Forums › US Court of International Trade Says It Has Jurisdiction Over China’s Ninestar’s Lawsuit Vs. US Gov.

Tonernews.com, November 30, 2023. USA
  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #452038

    toner
    Keymaster

    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.

    Ninestar Moves for Access to Full Administrative Record in UFLPA Dispute with the USA | Actionable Intelligence

    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.

    Ninestar Image Tech Limited

    Vs.

    U.S. Court of International Trade - YouTube

  • Author
    November 30, 2023 at 7:43 PM
Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty, or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the content on our site.