Court denies Ninestar’s injunction request, upholding U.S. embargo on printer products over forced labour concerns.
Ninestar Corporation has lost its bid for a preliminary injunction against the United States government. The United States Court of International Trade ruled against Ninestar’s motion, which sought to lift an embargo on its products imposed under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA). The Act targets goods suspected of being produced with forced labour, a claim Ninestar vehemently denies.
The lawsuit stemmed from Ninestar’s inclusion on the Department of Homeland Security’s Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force’s Entity List, effectively halting their product imports into the U.S. Ninestar argued that the listing was arbitrary, violating the Administrative Procedure Act. However, the court’s decision hinged on the plaintiff’s inability to demonstrate a likelihood of success in their claims, the potential for irreparable harm, the balance of equities, and public interest considerations.
In August 2023, Ninestar filed a lawsuit against the US Department of Homeland Security’s unjustified ban on Ninestar products in the US market on the 9th of June 2023. Ninestar says this was done “without offering any explanation or justification whatsoever for said action. Ninestar has not identified any basis for the designation. Meanwhile, the company is suffering irreparable harm to its business and reputation based on the listing.”
Ninestar also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction with the U.S. Court of International Trade, requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction as soon as possible to promptly suspend the implementation of the decision to place Ninestar on the UFLPA Entity List in order to mitigate the devastating and unwarranted financial and reputational harm accruing daily.
The company said the “U.S. government’s action mistakenly links Ninestar to forced labour. This linkage is not supported by the facts. On the contrary, Ninestar has always been committed to protecting and respecting the rights of its employees.”
