Printer Cartridge Maker Opposes US Bid for More Time to Respond to PI Motion in Case on UFLPA Listing

Chinese printer cartridge maker Ninestar Corp., along with eight of its Zhuhai-based subsidiaries, opposed the U.S.'s motion to extend the time to file a response to their request for a preliminary injunction in a case against their addition to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List. Ninestar said the government, in asking for a total of 62 more days, failed to show "good cause" for needing a delay to address "even one element of the preliminary injunction test" (Ninestar Corporation v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

The sole U.S. basis for the delay -- "the need to gather the Administrative Record" -- is "irrelevant" to the question of whether the Administrative Procedure Act "obliged the Government to publicly explain its actions," the brief said. Instead, the motion for more time "appears intended to improperly backfill post hoc the missing agency justification," Ninestar argued.

While the record can sometimes be relevant to a "preliminary discussion of the merits," especially where a company challenges the "sufficiency of the agency record," that is not the case here, the brief said. "Plaintiffs are not and cannot yet challenge the bases for the Government’s actions because the Government has never explained those bases." If Ninestar and its subsidiaries have their way, the listing decision would be returned to the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force, where the agency could "take the issue up again" instead of now filling the record with post hoc justifications, the companies claimed.

While the government delays, Ninestar and its subsidiaries "continue daily to suffer irreparable financial and reputational harm," prompting the rejection of the extension, the companies said. "Importing goods later will not recoup the value of contracts filled by competitors, additional shipping and storage costs, or the loss of contracts."

Ninestar brought its case in late August, asking the trade court to vacate the listing decision since the task force failed to offer any reasoned explanation for its decision and since the companies have no other recourse for learning the grounds on which they were listed (see 2308230016).