Chinese Printer Cartridge Exporter Challenges Its Addition to UFLPA Entity List
The Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force (FLETF) violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to provide any rationale for adding Chinese printer cartridge manufacturer Ninestar Corp., along with eight of its Zhuhai-based subsidiaries, to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List, the companies, led by Ninestar, argued (Ninestar Corp., et al. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00182).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade Aug. 22, Ninestar said the court should vacate the listing decision because FLETF failed to offer any "reasoned explanation" for its decision, and because the companies have "no other recourse for learning the grounds on which they were listed or, therefore, to successfully question the listing," the complaint said.
Ninestar and its subsidiaries produce and sell laser printers, integrated circuit chips and printer consumables, including toner and inkjet cartridges, many of which are imported into the U.S. FLETF added the companies to the UFLPA Entity List in June for allegedly working with the Xinjiang government to "recruit, transport, transfer, harbor or receive forced labor or Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, or member of other persecuted groups out of Xinjiang.”
Ninestar claimed the listing decision was the only notice it received of the action and "provides no explanation as to why any particular entity was added." No notice was given to Ninestar or any of its subsidiaries that they were to be added, and similarly, no public hearing, investigation or adjudication was held regarding the companies' labor practices prior to the listing, the complaint said.
To make their claims under the APA, the companies argued that the listing notice constitutes final agency action that "adversely affects and aggrieves" them. Their inclusion "requires CBP to presume that any good produced in whole or in part by any Plaintiff was made using forced labor" and is thus barred from entry into the U.S. Ninestar said it has been irreparably harmed by the listing via reputational damages, lost business relationships and severed revenue streams.
"Despite the fact that the Listing Decision provided no basis whatsoever for the listing, customers and industry analysts have taken the announcement alone as proof positive of Ninestar’s liability," the companies said. "Indeed, Plaintiffs are deemed guilty until proven innocent."
Additions to the UFLPA Entity List do not provide parties with access to the allegations against them or the FLETF's findings. Questions were raised as to whether this violates these companies' due process rights following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. (see 2307310034). In that decision, the court said CBP violated an importer's due process rights by failing to provide it access to confidential information in an AD/CVD evasion proceeding. Ninestar's complaint does not directly raise due process concerns, just APA ones.