Wine Tariffs discussion - NO POLITICS

[Nick_Gangas]

Do you believe that they are sincere in the accusation ?

[David_Bu3ker]

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.

[Al_Osterheld]

@Al_Osterheld

The refunds that are being processed through the CBP CAPE modifications only cover tariffs charged on imports that are still being processed, but not tariffs collected from imports that have been finalized.

In the original VOS Selections case, Judge Richard K Eaton recently lifted his stay (while the Atmus and Euro-Notions cases proceeded) and briefing on refunds for tariffs that can’t be remedied by the CAPE modified process and ordered Rodney Scott, Commissioner of CBP, to appear in a show cause hearing outlining how they will comply with order to refund all collected IEEPA tariffs.

The government requested Judge Eaton modify his order to not require Commissioner Scott to attend the hearing (basically, separation of powers arguments). They also stated that they have no authority to refund tariffs already collected without a court order, that the Casa ruling on universal injunctions prevents the Court from ordering that relief for importers who have not individually sued, and that they will appeal any attempt to compel these refunds.

This is just a delay and hope they go away tactic. The tariffs were unlawful, they want each individual importer to have to sue expecting that many will not.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.17080/gov.uscourts.cit.17080.88.0.pdf

I think this may implicate a bit less than half the tariffs, minus the tariffs from importers who have already sued (haven’t seen a good estimate).

-Al

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