Huawei’s USA subsidiary, Huawei Technologies USA Inc., has dropped a lawsuit it filed back in June against the US Commerce Department and several other US government agencies. The lawsuit was filed due to the US seizing some of Huawei’s telecom equipment back in September of 2017. The lawsuit has been consequently dropped after the US returned the equipment back to Huawei, which the Chinese telecom company views as an admission of the unlawful nature of the seizure.
In a statement, Huawei said, “After a prolonged and unexplained seizure, Huawei has decided to drop the case after the US government returned the equipment, which Huawei views as a tacit admission that the seizure itself was unlawful and arbitrary.” Huawei continued, implying the US imposed sanctions against the company are also unwarranted, “This case was cited among a series of concerns the company recently enumerated with regard to inappropriate and unjustified actions against Huawei by the US government.”
Huawei maintains that the equipment seized in September 2017, which included computer servers, Ethernet switches, and other telecommunications gear, should have been “shipped back to China after commercial testing and certification at a laboratory in California in September 2017.” Huawei also begrudges the US Commerce Department for not specifying the exact nature of the alleged export violation.
Huawei requested in writing for the US Commerce Department to explain fully why it detained the equipment in 2017, why it decided to release it now, and why it took almost two years to recognize that the equipment’s detention was not justified. The failure of the US to provide any explanation for the equipment seizure is what initially prompted the genesis of the lawsuit from Huawei.
Dr. Song Liuping, Huawei’s chief legal officer, commented, “Arbitrary and unlawful government actions like this – detaining property without cause or explanation – should serve as a cautionary tale for all companies doing normal business in the United States, and should be subject to legal constraints.”