As I understand it, tariffs could not be imposed under a reconciliation approach, which is the only way I can see congress passing anything without dem support.
And again, that’s for the Section 122 tariffs.
There has been a change in the ongoing cases in the Court of International Trade regarding refunds of IEPPA tariffs. Recall the CIT had designated Judge Richard Eaton to handle all the cases, chosen a lawsuit by Atmus Filtration to be the lead case, and Judge Eaton was supervising CBP’s development of new capability that would allow them to efficiently process the millions of claims. The other cases were stayed pending outcome in Atmus. A few days ago, Atmus Filtration moved to dismiss their lawsuit.
Yesterday, another case, filed by Euro-Notions, was designated as the new lead case and Judge Eaton issued the same orders he had in the Atmus case including an order for the next in a series of progress reports from CBP, due on April 14.
As a result of these developments, the orders issued by the CIT in the Atmus case are no longer in effect. The new order issued in Euro-Nations will govern the next stages of the IEEPA litigation process. It is unclear whether this will cause a delay in the implementation of the proposed Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (“CAPE”) system or the effect it will have on the liquidation of entries that continue to occur on a daily basis. The designation of a new lead case will reset the clock with respect to the deadline for appeal by the U.S. government and any appeal must be filed within 60 days or approximately June 6, 2026.
For more details, see the short article below (note the Euro-Nations should be Euro-Notions):
In other news, the two lawsuits challenging the Section 122 10% global tariffs were assigned to the same judge, have been fully briefed, and will have oral arguments on Friday. The lawsuits challenge the governments interpretation of Section 122 as allowing tariffs based on deficit in balance of trade rather than balance of payments.
-Al
1 Like
Did the admin pay them to give up and thus delay the proceedings?
That occurred to me, but also maybe that they preferred to become one of the many free riders while the solution is developed.
-Al
1 Like
So maybe the lawyers for Euro-Notions paid them off instead to become lead counsel!
Thanks for the update (or noting it), btw.
finally my 2024 Henri Boillot wines arrived with an additional 10% tariff. too late to ship to FL
Save your tariff receipts.
Article on court arguments on the § 122 tariffs.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/04/10/trump-tariffs-court-international-trade-hearing-00867479
1 Like
CBP will open their modified CAPE tool for declarations of IEEPA refunds tomorrow morning. This first phase covers tariffs that have not yet been liquidated and some entries within 80 days of liquidation. From what I’ve read, I think this covers a fairly small fraction of the tariffs collected (estimated to be $166B), but still billions of dollars. CBP also reported that about 3/4 of the eligible importers have signed up and provided the necessary information to receive direct deposit refunds of the tariffs plus interest.
Future phases will handle additional refunds and it sounds like they are making good progress modifying and testing their software systems. At least for this initial phase (and I expect for most situations) the importers do not need to file suit in the Court of International Trade, just submit information on all the shipments for which they paid the IEEPA tariffs which will then be validated and refunded in one transaction rather than many individual transactions (this was one of the main efficiencies of the approach they have been developing, there are very many more shipments than importers).
The presiding judge is a bit quirky, but he’s run an efficient response and CBP has been cooperating.
Periodically updated page from CBP:
https://www.cbp.gov/trade/programs-administration/trade-remedies/ieepa-duty-refunds
-Al
3 Likes
There is a new wrinkle in the IEEPA tariffs refund case. An amicus brief was filed on behalf of the International Trade Surety Association. Importers purchase surety bonds to guarantee that import duties are paid to the government. The face value of the bond is held in escrow by CBP. If the importer fails to pay duties when the goods arrive, which has become more likely with the large increase in tariffs over the past fifteen months, the bond is used to cover the cost of the tariffs (if amount is sufficient, a separate issue in some sectors that had large tariffs imposed). The phase one refund process that CBP opened last Monday is set up to refund tariffs to importers or brokers but did not consider that some of the tariffs were actually paid by the surety companies. At least, the regular progress reports from CBP in the case have not mentioned the issue. The Association has pointed out the issue to CBP but have not received a response how it has been or will be addressed, and the regular progress reports from CBP in the case have not mentioned the issue at all. While CBP has the information about surety bonds used for tariff payments, it sounds like that information may not be in the CAPE system so it would potentially issue refunds to importers who defaulted on tariff payments.
This seems like a real issue and one that needs to be addressed before any refunds are processed, or problem will potentially become worse. Any fix is likely to delay refunds since the modified refund system will need to be tested. This will undoubtedly be discussed in the next period update hearing on April 28.
This is yet another example that tariff refunds are more complicated than the the government represented in their arguments about relative harms in arguments over whether the tariffs should continue to be collected during period while lower court rulings were appealed to the Supreme Court.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.17610/gov.uscourts.cit.17610.22.1_1.pdf
-Al
1 Like
Is there a concern that some of these bonded importers would not be able to pay the surety back?
Remember that the Section 122 tariffs are currently in force.
Any thoughts on what may happen when they expire? July? I’m hoping for a window to clear some stock.
What will happen? Something with questionable legal underpinnings is most likely. Any window will be short.
That’s just a guess.
2 Likes
One day window would work for me!
Depends on how the questionable tariffs are worded.
Given that they have seen what can happen I expect something that includes no “goods in transit” exception.
1 Like
I think there is a non-trivial chance the administration simply tries to renew the Section 122 tariffs by saying the emergency situation still exists. That’s one of the main reasons the two Section 122 tariff lawsuits (joined at the same three judge panel at the Court of International Trade) are important even though the clock will run before those cases are decided.
The two cases were brought by states and by some small businesses. At the oral arguments, the judges were skeptical the states had standing but seemed favorable to standing of the small businesses. On the merits, the government mainly argued that the statute requires deference to the President’s determination even if it seems at odds with definitions or intent of Congress at the time (before we went off gold standard, which substantially changes the concern that led to that Section). The panel seemed skeptical. There was was discussion whether administration could use the deference argument to apply Section 122 like IEEPA was used, and to renew the tariffs was the President deemed necessary.
-Al
2 Likes
Non-trivial? I expect a 13.27% “new” tariff with the argument that it’s not even the same tariff.
1 Like
Yeah, two serious questions:
- Can Section 122 be used at all in the current economic/legal situation (how is there a balance of payments issue with floating currency?).
- Can Section 122 tariffs be “renewed” after the 150 day limitation period established in law, e.g., by a “new” tariff?
- Will the admin, even if it loses on both those arguments, say “we’re still applying tariffs MFers and you come claim for a refund!”
I agree #3 is a realistic scenario, even though the answers to 1 and 2 are probably no. But if there’s something clear by late July, there may be a window of opportunity. Smart of the wine.com people to move the wine to the US for rapid movement out of bond.