Wirth Consulting

For in-depth print and business-process workflow research and insight

Ninestar Provides More Information on Import-Ban Lawsuit, Says No Evidence to Support Ban

by ·

Ninestar Corporation of Zhuhai, China, recently provided more details on its lawsuit challenging the U.S. government’s ban of its products into the U.S. In June 2023, the U.S. government banned Ninestar and several of its subsidiaries from importing products, mainly printer consumables, into the U.S., stating the companies had violated the U.S.’s Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA), which bans products produced by the Uyghur minority in forced-labor conditions in China. 

Background

On June 10th, Ninestar said it learned that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had placed the Ninestar and some of its Zhuhai-based subsidiaries on the UFLPA Entity List.  

Since that time, Ninestar says it’s devoted significant time and resources reviewing its operations and management and has concluded that the inclusion of Ninestar and the subsidiaries on the UFLPA Entity List is baseless. It says the DHS has not presented any evidence to substantiate its claims, and that Ninestar has always been committed to protecting and respecting the rights of its employees.

Ninestar Lawsuit

In order to protect its rights, shareholders, and global partners, on August 22nd, Ninestar and the subsidiaries jointly filed a lawsuit before the U.S. Court of International Trade, arguing that the administrative decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). At the same time, Ninestar and the subsidiaries also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction with the U.S. Court of International Trade, requesting that the court issue an injunction to overturn the listing decision.

The defendants in Ninestar’s lawsuit are the United States of America; U.S Department of Homeland Security (DHS); U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP); U.S Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force (FLETF); and directors for the agencies.

Ninestar Claims

Ninestar and the subsidiaries are asking the U.S. Court of International Trade to declare that the defendants have acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in violation of the APA by failing to provide an explanation for the listing decision. It’s also asking to vacate FLETF’s determination to add the plaintiffs to the UFLPA Entity List, and to halt the DHS and CBP from enforcing the UFLPA’s adverse importation presumption. Last, it’s asking the court to award other relief as the court deems just.

Facts and Reasons

Ninestar says that “Without any notice or any explanation, the defendants arbitrarily and capriciously placed Ninestar on the UFLPA Entity List.”

It also says this decision has caused irreparable financial and reputational damage to Ninestar and its subsidiaries, including direct losses from lost sales orders, indirect losses from reduced business opportunities, and potential losses from corporate reputational damages. The firm says “The negative impact of the administrative decision to Ninestar and its subsidiaries is not limited to the U.S. market—it has also caused irreparable damage to the business of Ninestar and its subsidiaries globally.”

The company argues that under Section 706(2) of the U.S. Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the court should set aside and declare the administrative decision illegal, as such “agency action, findings, and conclusions” were “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

Ninestar says it will continue to pay close attention to and actively pursue this litigation, firmly defend its interests and public shareholders, and will disclose any relevant information regarding its lawsuit.

More Resources