By  on February 9, 2005

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Justice Department has turned to the appeals process to overturn a ruling that has stymied the government’s review of petitions that seek to limit Chinese imports, arguing that they threaten to disrupt domestic markets.

The Justice Department asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Monday night to stay a preliminary injunction barring it from accepting or reviewing the safeguard petitions, pending a formal appeal. The U.S. Court of International Trade in New York issued the injunction.

The government also asked the Court of Appeals in Washington for an expedited schedule regarding an appeal it said it would file by Monday. Justice Department lawyers asked that the U.S. Association of Importers of Apparel & Textiles, which brought the original lawsuit at the Court of International Trade, be instructed to respond to the appeal by Feb. 28.

It is the second time the Justice Department has asked a court to stay the preliminary injunction that bars it from accepting or reviewing safeguard petitions that seek to impose fresh quotas on Chinese apparel and textile imports. A trade court judge turned down the government’s request to delay the injunction on Jan. 31.

The legal maneuvering stems from a case filed by U.S. importers that challenges the government’s authority to impose limits on Chinese textile and apparel imports based solely on threat rather than actual market disruption.

China agreed to a safeguard mechanism, or temporary quotas, when it joined the World Trade Organization in December 2001. The provision allows importing nations to impose one-year quotas on Chinese apparel and textile imports that are threatening to cause, or are causing, market disruption.

A coalition of U.S. domestic textile, fiber and apparel groups and the union UNITE HERE filed 12 safeguard petitions, beginning in October, in an effort to curb the flow of Chinese imports. The injunction has forced the coalition to consider whether it will have to file new petitions based on actual market disruption, depending on how long the court case and appeal drag on.

In its motion to lift the injunction, the government argued: “A stay is necessary to remove any impediment to our ability to exercise rights pursuant to China’s Accession Agreement to the World Trade Organization.”

To Read the Full Article
SUBSCRIBE NOW

Tap into our Global Network

Of Industry Leaders and Designers

load comments
blog comments powered by Disqus