The Xiaomi struck a deal to escape the sanctions of the United States . The deal with the American government comes after the Department of Defense accused the manufacturer of being a “Chinese communist military company” in mid-January 2021. The information was revealed by Bloomberg on Wednesday (12).
According to the website, the United States Department of Defense agreed that a final order to remove the company from the list “would be appropriate”. “The parties reached an agreement on a way forward that would resolve this dispute without the need for contested instruction,” says a document submitted to the country’s court.
The terms of the agreement are still being defined by Xiaomi and United States officials. The two parties will submit a new proposal by 20 May. Sought by Bloomberg , the Chinese manufacturer did not comment on the matter.
Xiaomi Denies Being “Chinese Communist Military Company”
The agreement tends to bring an end to the episode that started in January , which would result in investment restrictions for the manufacturer. Still under the administration of Donald Trump, the US government added Xiaomi to the list of “Chinese communist military companies”. Other Chinese companies, like Comac, also joined the relationship.
“The Department of Defense has released the names of additional ‘Chinese communist military companies’ operating directly or indirectly in the United States, in accordance with the statutory requirement of Section 1237 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1999, as amended ”, Announced at the time.
Cellphone maker Mi, Poco and Redmi denied the allegations shortly thereafter. In a statement, the manufacturer said it is not “owned, controlled or affiliated with the Chinese army” and that it is not a “Chinese communist military company”. Then, in late January, Xiaomi filed a lawsuit against the United States authorities.
In March, Xiaomi secured a court injunction that overturned government sanctions. For the federal judge who considered the case, the American government lacked “substantial evidence”. At the time, the manufacturer said it was “satisfied” with the decision.