Do you believe that they are sincere in the accusation ?
Kinda, sorta…
The EU has a new law that completely bans any and all forced labor goods from production, import, or export, but it doesn’t go into effect until late next year. The individual countries have their own rules now, but they are “due diligence” oriented for the most part, rather than outright bans.
This aspect of the IEEPA tariff cases has had a fair bit of action in the VOS Selections case and the Federal Circuit. After the judge ordered the show cause hearing to be attended by CPB Commissioner Scott, the government filed a motion to amend that order to allow a different official to attend and the judge denied the motion. The government responded in two ways. First they filed a request for a writ of mandamus in the Federal Circuit asking them to order the judge to not request Scott’s attendance. Second, they appealed the original order back in April ordering refunds of tariffs paid plus interest. they have been complying with this order for some of the tariffs, but recently claimed that CBP lacks authority to refund tariff payments finalized in their internal systems absent a court order for each importer (requiring them all to sue in largely redundant proceedings). Judge Eaton issued a couple of mildly cross letters that he requested to be forwarded to the Federal Circuit.
The Federal Circuit issued a stay while they consider the writ of mandamus. Judge Eaton amended his order granting the earlier order to allow a substitute for Scott. The government filed a letter in the Federal Circuit withdrawing their mandamus petition as moot.
Here is the government’s response to the order to show cause. It argues both practical matters about dealing with additional large numbers of refunds and also that CBP lacks authority to issue those refunds unless an importer sues individually and a court orders relief, once again citing CASA regarding universal injunctions.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.17080/gov.uscourts.cit.17080.98.0_2.pdf
In response, Neal Katyal filed a motion to certify a class of all importers who paid IEEPA tariffs and who are not eligible for refunds under the current CPB process. He argues that CASA doesn’t apply, but also that certifying the class would resolve any ambiguity.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.17080/gov.uscourts.cit.17080.99.0.pdf
In the appeal of the Section 122 tariffs recently found unlawful, the parties are still litigating whether a stay pending the appeal should be granted (a temporary administrative stay was issued).
-Al
2 Likes
Welp
Unfortunately if import tariff threats are how you want to get taxes removed on digital services and you are working your way down on France’s top 2025 exports BevAlc is a target.
I can’t see France removing digital tax of which it seems they collected $874MM in DST in 2025, but possibly reducing it.
- Machinery including computers: US$82.8 billion (12.4% of total exports)
- Vehicles: $57.4 billion (8.6%)
- Electrical machinery, equipment: $51.1 billion (7.7%)
- Aircraft, spacecraft: $47.3 billion (7.1%)
- Pharmaceuticals: $44.2 billion (6.6%)
- Perfumes, cosmetics: $28.8 billion (4.3%)
- Mineral fuels including oil: $23.5 billion (3.5%)
- Plastics, plastic articles: $23.2 billion (3.5%)
- Beverages, spirits, vinegar: $20.6 billion (3.1%)
- Optical, technical, medical apparatus: $19.5 billion (2.9%)
Probably not . . . I could also see them raising it as an FU.
I don’t know about that. The France wine industry is hurting already and they can ill afford a crippling tariff from one of their largest markets.
Exports of wine to U.S. are about $2B. DST at 3% raised nearly $1B. Triple it and you can use the increased revenue to pay off the entire wine industry. France already had been considering an increase in the DST.
2 Likes
The French governement may also want to show support for agricultural outside assisting in “grubbing up” like 2 years ago, and again in 2025, that cost €230MM+ and perhaps a reduction or removal of DST and wine and spirits being tariff free between the two countries is a sensible example as it helps businesses in both countries in BevAlc that produce items that cannot be produced domestically with Bordeaux, Champagne, Bourbon, etc…
There is a new filing in the Euro-Notions case, the lead case in the Court of International Trade supervising the refund of tariffs collected under IEPPA. It’s a motion to appear as amicus curiae representing a putative class of plaintiffs in HM Nabavian & Sons v USA in the Court of Federal Claims. Those plaintiffs consist of individuals and businesses that paid IEPPA duties directly to CPB Customs agents at a port of entry or to an importer of record who collected the tariffs from their clients. Those plaintiffs are not covered by the CBP process that has been developed in Euro-Notions because they are not the importer of record. In addition, the importers of record are not entitled to refunds of those tariffs because they did not pay them.
So, the proposed amicus is asking the court to direct CBP to modify their process to require importers to certify any tariffs they passed through to clients and that CBP and Dept of Treasury should identify and retain that portion of the refunds so that it can be provided through the Court of Federal Claims to the actual payors of the tariffs.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.17610/gov.uscourts.cit.17610.36.1.pdf
There is also an ongoing appeal of an order by the judge to provide refunds of IEPPA tariffs collected long enough in the past that the current process does not cover them (no longer carried in the data systems that have been modified to enable the refunds so far). The government wants importers to file individual lawsuits to obtain those refunds. That appeal hasn’t progressed very far, also Neal Katyal has filed a motion in VOS Selections to certify a class of the entities who paid tariffs, are owed refunds, but have not sued.
Finally, in the appeal to the Federal Circuit of refunds owed in the Section 122 tariffs, arguing that the panel in the Court of International Trade ruled incorrectly over the meaning of “balance of payments” in the statute. The early litigation in that appeal considered whether the order of the lower court should be stayed pending appeal, the Federal Circuit has now granted the motion for stay pending appeal.
-Al
2 Likes
I thought this was a well written concise explanation of how the 301 tariffs might be challenged successfully.
2 Likes
The shot has just hit the fun: 50% tariffs on Canadian wines!
This puts Okanagan Valley Siegerrebe and Ontario Baco Noir completely out of reach.
1 Like
Get the marechal foch out of here!
1 Like
Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, yet another source of tariff authority.
-Al
1 Like
Wait…I am not the only one who has had Okanagan Sieggerebe?
Tariffs are no longer dormant. New 50% for some Canadian goods including wine.
I’ll use the current Canadian tariff spotlight as an opportunity to share one of my favorite producers to visit on our yearly trip to the in-law’s summer house in Nova Scotia: Lightfoot & Wolfville
Flying to NS on Thursday. Looking forward to drinking these wines again and bringing a couple bottles back. Damn tariffs.
1 Like
You won’t pay tariffs if you bring them with you on the plane.
2 Likes
Any update on the broad tariffs expiring on Friday? It seems like they plan to replace them with something, but they are really cutting it close.