The government hasn't justified its decision to keep a vast majority of the information confidential as part of Chinese printer cartridge maker Ninestar Corp.'s case against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, Ninestar argued. Filing its opposition to the U.S.'s motion to enter an amended protective order on Oct. 23 at the Court of International Trade, the exporter said the motion would "give the Government essentially unreviewable discretion to seal information, placing it beyond Ninestar's review" and is just "another bid for delay and distraction" (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The U.S. asked for an amended protective order in a case brought by Chinese printer cartridge maker Ninestar Corp. to challenge its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. The request comes on the heels of Ninestar's request for the Court of International Trade to compel production of the confidential information used in the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force's review of Ninestar (see 2310180025) (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

Chinese printer cartridge manufacturer Ninestar Corp. urged the Court of International Trade to order the U.S. to submit the full, unredacted administrative record relating to the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force's (FLETF's) decision to add Ninestar to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Even though the court has entered a protective order in the case, the government redacted over 99% of its submitted record (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

The U.S. failed to fulfill its "simple but fundamental obligation to explain itself" in a lawsuit brought by a Chinese printer cartridge maker challenging its addition to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the company, Ninestar Corp., said in a reply brief supporting its motion for a preliminary injunction against the listing. Ninestar dubbed the government's response to the PI motion a series of "distractions and desperate reaches," including the U.S. claim that the Court of International Trade lacks jurisdiction because a presumptive ban on Ninestar's goods is not an "embargo" (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

The U.S. opposed an expedited briefing schedule from Chinese printer cartridge manufacturer Ninestar Corp. in the company's case against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Ninestar's motion would hold the government's motion to dismiss in abeyance pending resolution of the company's bid for a preliminary injunction. The U.S. said "it is reversible error for the Court to delay consideration of its jurisdiction until after ruling on the motion for a preliminary injunction" (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

Trade lawyers and importers are wondering how the anti-stockpiling element of a two-year pause on trade remedy circumvention deposits will be enforced.

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

Chinese printer cartridge maker Ninestar Corp. has until Nov. 7 to reply to the U.S. motion to dismiss Ninestar’s suit against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the Court of International Trade said Oct. 4. Judge Gary Katzmann said the reply can include a response regarding the company's motion for a preliminary injunction (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

The Court of International Trade doesn't have subject-matter jurisdiction over the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force's (FLETF) addition of entities to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 3 motion to dismiss. Seeking dismissal of a case filed by Chinese printer cartridge manufacturer Ninestar Corp., the government said that because the FLETF's decision is neither an embargo nor a quantitive restriction, the court doesn't have jurisdiction over the proceeding under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction (Ninestar Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00182).