The textile district of South Carolina sued the United States Department of Commerce, seeking $20 billion in damages over its handling of textile exports to China.
The federal government responded with a $6.5 billion claim in February.
The textile district argued that the Commerce Department’s refusal to allow it to import U.S. cotton products to China was unlawful because it violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, which prohibits unfair competition and interstate commerce.
According to the suit, the Commerce Dept. is seeking to deny the textile district the right to import cotton products from the United Nations, China, India, Bangladesh and the Philippines, where its products are made.
The complaint filed by the textile board of trade said the Commerce department’s refusal was “irresponsible, unpatriotic, and dangerous.”
The department’s response said that the textile claims were filed in the absence of any basis for them and that the board’s actions were consistent with the law.
It added that the claim was based on the “unique and complex relationship between China and the United Kingdom” and was not based on an “industry-wide or global trend.”
The textile board, however, noted that its claims are based on “two very different sets of facts.”
According to an earlier statement from the department, the complaint was based only on the claims that the U.K. and China have a “shared history of trade and commerce,” and the textile trade has “always been an important component of the U-K.’s international economy.”
The department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Earlier this year, a U.N. tribunal ruled that the United states must allow textile exports from the Philippines to China because the country is a member of the International Organization for Migration (IOM).
However, the Philippine government, which is not a member state of the IOM, has asked the tribunal to rule that the trade cannot be banned because it is part of the trade in textiles.
According the Philippine state-run newspaper The Star, the U and IOM’s “special rapporteur” on the subject, Michael Fadness, has written to the U, U.A.E. and IORM.
However, Fadnesses’ letter has not yet been made public.
“There is no doubt that we have a common interest in upholding trade relations between the U/U countries and the IORMS,” the letter reads.
In a statement, the textile boards of trade wrote that the complaint is part “of a pattern of attacks on U. S. trade policies, and we hope that the courts will continue to reject this kind of frivolous and politically motivated litigation.”
A number of other textile boards have filed similar lawsuits against the U in the past few years.