Wirth Consulting

For in-depth print and document workflow research and insight

Ninestar Argues Appeals Case in CIT Hearing

by ·

January 18th marked a key recent hearing for Ninestar Corporation vs. USA before the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York City.

Ninestar vs. USA is Ninestar’s August 2023 appeal of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s ban of Ninestar products. The ban also cover products from eight of Ninestar’s subsidiaries.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the ban in June 2023, stating that Ninestar of Zhuhai, China, as well as its subsidiaries, used slave labor in its Chinese supply chains or factories in violation of the U.S. Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA).

Ninestar denies the charges, and is seeking to reverse the ban. It says that DHS added Ninestar and its subsidiaries to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List “without offering any explanation or justification whatsoever for said action,” and that “Ninestar has not identified any basis for the designation.” Meanwhile, it says, it’s “suffering irreparable harm to its business and reputation based on the listing.”

Disputed Evidence

The company has also stated that it’s still not seen the evidence that resulted in the ban, only a heavily redacted version of documents. Currently, there are said to be three versions of the case available: a completely redacted public version; a less redacted version available to the lawsuit parties; and an unredacted version available only to the U.S. government and the court. Ninestar is said not to have access to the unredacted version.

Judge Gary Katzmann is overseeing the case at CIT, and is said to have urged the two parties to pursue administrative remedies that would lead to the case’s dismissal. 

At the hearing, Ninestar contended that the DHS acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in violation of U.S. law when it implemented the ban. It says the ban is based on a “guilty until proven innocent” presumption that undermines fair competition, and that it’s committed to restoring its business operations in the U.S. It’s also seeking a preliminary injunction that would allow it to operate in the U.S. until the case is resolved. 

For his part, Judge Katzmann has not made any comments or rulings, nor responded to the request for an injunction.

More Resources