Misleading headline.
"... told Court of International Trade Judge Richard Eaton it cannot currently comply ..."
Note the word "currently."
"CBP suggested it could begin issuing refunds by late April after revamping its technology."
CBP says it can't comply with refund order
61–70 of 71 posts
Re: CBP says it can't comply with refund order
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And it doesn't apply to anyone who isn't the president. They have a cool loophole for it. President can pardon those who commit crimes he asks them to commit. See what he did for thousands of insurrectionists and a lot of his friends who bribed him.
The strangest "The President is not King but we give home this power of a King" section in the Constitution.
It's one of several "checks and balances" whereby one branch can override another branch, in this case the executive can override the judicial. Congress (the legislative) can override the executive too, by firing the President if they feel he's breaking too many laws (or indeed for any reason they want). It's a wonder they haven't chosen to. It indicates Congress approves of what the President is doing.
Re: CBP says it can't comply with refund order
#63Of course it's worth noting that CBP repeatedly argued in its previous court filings that there was no need for an injunction to halt the tariffs while they were being litigated, because if the tariffs were found to be unlawful, it could easily refund them. For instance: > In other words, plaintiffs’ asserted irreparable harm is the purported inability to obtain a refund after a final and unappealable decision becaus…
Its because they would have to refund China...because...you know...China has been paying the tariffs...
Re: CBP says it can't comply with refund order
#64Of course it's worth noting that CBP repeatedly argued in its previous court filings that there was no need for an injunction to halt the tariffs while they were being litigated, because if the tariffs were found to be unlawful, it could easily refund them. For instance: > In other words, plaintiffs’ asserted irreparable harm is the purported inability to obtain a refund after a final and unappealable decision becaus…
> because if the tariffs were found to be unlawful, it could easily refund them.
I think it's worth emphasizing that the US government argued not only that it could issue refunds, but that it would issue refunds and that it would not oppose an order to do so. In addition to the quote from the US government's opposition to a motion for preliminary injunction, there are these quotes mentioned in the opinion for the linked order [0]:
> [E]ven if future entries are liquidated, defendants do not intend to oppose the [c]ourt’s authority to order reliquidation.... Such reliquidation would result in a refund of all duties determined to be unlawfully assessed, with interest.
> Defendants “will not oppose the [c]ourt’s authority to order reliquidation of entries of merchandise subject to the challenged IEEPA duties and that they will refund any IEEPA duties found to have been unlawfully collected, after a final and unappealable decision has been issued finding the duties to have been unlawfully collected and ordering defendants to refund the duties.”
> “If tariffs imposed on plaintiffs during these appeals are ultimately held unlawful, then the government will issue refunds to plaintiffs, including any post-judgment interest that accrues.”
> For any plaintiff who is an importer, even if a stay is entered and defendants do not prevail on appeal, plaintiffs will assuredly receive payment on their refund with interest. ‘[T]here is virtually no risk’ to any importer that they ‘would not be made whole’ should they prevail on appeal. The most ‘harm’ that could incur would be a delay in collecting on deposits. This harm is, by definition, not irreparable. Plaintiffs will not lose their entitlement to a refund, plus interest, if the preliminary injunction is stayed, and they are guaranteed payment by defendants should the [c]ourt’s decision be upheld. And defendants do not oppose the reliquidation of any entries of goods subject to IEEPA duties paid by plaintiffs that are ultimately found to be unlawful after appeal.
> To the extent that any future entries are liquidated, the [c]ourt may order reliquidation of entries subject to the challenged de minimis exemption if the duties paid by Axle are, in a final and unappealable decision, found to have been unlawfully collected. Such reliquidation would result in a refund of all duties determined to be unlawfully assessed, with interest.
[0]: https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/25-154.pdf
Re: CBP says it can't comply with refund order
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'll be repaid to whoever paid it in the first place (typically an importer, not you unless you're an importer). So any beef to do with not getting a refund should be directed at the domestic supply chain. I note that Costco has stated they will pass on the refund to their customers.
In Costco's case they sell branded goods as loss leaders because they make up the cost via the membership fees, margins engineering thanks to Kirkland Signature, extremely diligent SKU management, and only targeting the upper 50% of households by income [0][1]. As such, they can eat the cost of a "refund" because the actual cost is hidden in the membership fee anyhow. Costco is a case study in how to run a business -…
> The bottom 50% shop at Walmart. The top 50% at Costco.
If that is true (not sure), then why does Costco treat all its customers like hardened criminals by demanding to scan receipts at the door? If they are targeting higher income households, you'd think they would show a bit more respect to the customers?
This is why I refuse to have anything to do with costco. I'm comfortably in the top few% of income.
Re: CBP says it can't comply with refund order
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Costco's case they sell branded goods as loss leaders because they make up the cost via the membership fees, margins engineering thanks to Kirkland Signature, extremely diligent SKU management, and only targeting the upper 50% of households by income [0][1]. As such, they can eat the cost of a "refund" because the actual cost is hidden in the membership fee anyhow. Costco is a case study in how to run a business -…
> The bottom 50% shop at Walmart. The top 50% at Costco. If that is true (not sure), then why does Costco treat all its customers like hardened criminals by demanding to scan receipts at the door? If they are targeting higher income households, you'd think they would show a bit more respect to the customers? This is why I refuse to have anything to do with costco. I'm comfortably in the top few% of income.
top few % steal more shit than the rest % combined
Re: CBP says it can't comply with refund order
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
The strangest "The President is not King but we give home this power of a King" section in the Constitution.
It's one of several "checks and balances" whereby one branch can override another branch, in this case the executive can override the judicial. Congress (the legislative) can override the executive too, by firing the President if they feel he's breaking too many laws (or indeed for any reason they want). It's a wonder they haven't chosen to. It indicates Congress approves of what the President is doing.
I think this is sort of final proof that electing a king for four years with more or less total power as the presidential system outlines is fundamentally a shit system.
Re: CBP says it can't comply with refund order
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just following literally illegal orders.
They didn’t know they were illegal at the time, and no court had ruled they were until literally just last week. Besides, we’re taking about imposing tariffs, not depriving people of life or liberty. Have some persective.
That’s not true. 2 different courts ruled them illegal months ago. The administration decided to fight it abnd each time they lost.
It certainly would have been prudent for cbp to contemplate this very scenario given their own lawyers predicted it. But let’s be honest, that would have gotten them fired.
Re: CBP says it can't comply with refund order
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's one of several "checks and balances" whereby one branch can override another branch, in this case the executive can override the judicial. Congress (the legislative) can override the executive too, by firing the President if they feel he's breaking too many laws (or indeed for any reason they want). It's a wonder they haven't chosen to. It indicates Congress approves of what the President is doing.
I think this is sort of final proof that electing a king for four years with more or less total power as the presidential system outlines is fundamentally a shit system.
This is just a new (and primarily conservative) interpretation of the system (the so-called "unitary executive" theory).
There's a different interpretation where the existing laws constrain the executive, there is no "unitary executive", and the result is a highly constrained presidency. E.g. Biden attempting to use explicit language written by Congress to do something and being told he could not do so by the judiciary (for "reasons").
Re: CBP says it can't comply with refund order
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't strange per se. The Chief executor by definition has discretion. The thing that's gone haywire now is that discretion is being used in a repugnant manner to most actually sane people.
>The thing that's gone haywire now is that discretion is being used in a repugnant manner to most actually sane people. This was probably expected. What wasn't expected is that voters would put the people doing this back into office AFTER they had done it.
> What wasn't expected is that voters would put the people doing this back into office AFTER they had done it.
Through this entire experience, the greatest revelation for me has been this:
There is a very large number of massively stupid people who live among us. Much more so than most of us expected.