Partly for technical reasons and mostly because of the sheer number of refunds that would need to be processed (more than 53M), CBP can’t comply with recent court order to refund the tariffs collected. Instead, they are working to add a capability to their automated system of record that will allow them to refund on an importer basis (330,000+ importers) rather than import by import. They estimate it will take them 45 days to create that capability.
The judge subsequently issued an order suspending immediate compliance with his earlier order.
The government has not yet appealed the judge’s refund order. If they do, CBP is likely to continue the development of the capability mentioned above while the issue is litigated.
Thanks for posting . . . that’s the kind of declaration that will serve rather useful to challengers of future tariffs when making the case for irreparable harm from continued assessment of tariffs. CBP can’t even stop collecting tariffs in the future that have already been deemed illegal.
For the most part, true, but see paragraphs 13 and 14, where they assert the can’t stop the liquidation of tariff payments (i.e., finalizing them) for future dates. I.e., they will still finalize a charged tariff at whatever rate it was under IEEPA, not zero.
This is the capability CBP described in a declaration in the Atmus case in the Court of International trade. The judge ordered refunds and that CBP file a progress report on March 12. After this report, he continued his suspension of the order for (more immediate) refunds, and also ordered another progress report on March 19.
The government has not appealed the refund order.
Elsewhere, a Costco member has filed a lawsuit against Costco seeking refunds of tariff related costs passed on to customers. Good luck with that.
Trump’s 150 day tariff emergency runs out on July 24th.
In order for him to levy new tariffs, he apparently needs an act of Congress. I am hoping that there will be some serious infighting, and with the summer recess in August, or it has occasionally happened late July, he may struggle to get the legislation passed.
Looks like there may be an opportunity to ship ship late Summer, early Fall. Or am I being too optimistic?
Possible, but who knows? Personally I’m planning on shipping this Spring and having the stock remain in bonded storage, but on shore. That way if even a miniscule window emerges at some point, we can clear the stock without delay.
The administration has started investigations to lay the groundwork for new tariffs under different sections of the Trade Act of 1974 (for national defense, economic security, or unfair trade practices). TBD how it all turns out after other countries respond, etc.
I am sure that the case can be made on either or both for a number of these countries/jurisdictions in certain industries, but does the relief have to be tied to those industries? I.e., if there’s a finding of excess capacity in the European automobile market, could that justify imposition of tariffs on wine (or generally all goods)?
Extending the current Section 122 tariffs requires Congressional action, but as noted above there are other avenues available so long as the investigative process is followed.
I will refrain from speculating on any investigations in this forum for hopefully obvious reasons.
The USTR investigations could be used by President to levy tariffs under existing laws delegating authority to the President. There is a process the President has to follow for tariffs under those regulations, the fact finding is part of the process.
I was thinking of how tariffs could be “refunded” and could see a scenario where importers have a “booked credit” to run down based on the new tariff scenarios the governemnt deploys. This keeps the banked funds here and just offers a credit against future imports. The 4 step process proposed (CAPE) seems very governmenty and inefficient for those looking for refunds.
This won’t trickle down to the consumer, none of it will if there was an FOB adjustment vs. a tariff line and would only be seen by the importer of record to which they likely leave prices as is and make their money from prior tariffs back and then some.
I think it is non-zero because much of Congress seems willing to do what Trump asks. But I agree it is very unlikely, particularly in July right before elections, for a majority to support what is effectively a tax increase.
