CBP says it can't comply with refund order
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
For instance:
> In other words, plaintiffs’ asserted irreparable harm is the purported inability to obtain a refund after a final and unappealable decision because of liquidation. But that asserted harm is nonexistent here because defendants have made very clear—both in this case and in related cases—that they will not object to the Court ordering reliquidation of plaintiffs’ entries subject to the challenged IEEPA duties if such duties are found to be unlawful. Because defendants’ representations make clear that liquidation will not interfere with the availability of refunds after a final decision, plaintiffs cannot be irreparably harmed by liquidation.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.172...
We need some mechanism in litigation (and imho in public life in general) that requires claims to be secured in some way. That is, if you go into court and make an argument like this, you have to chain it to consequences, such as being stripped of specific legal consequences or losing 10% of your shares or whatever.
It's illegal to commit perjury, but there are no real consequences for making bous legal arguments, and lawyers are structurally incentivized to make tacit misrepresentations on behalf of their clients - that is, to make inflated or handwavey claims in the hope that they're not challenged during the fact-finding stage, or even stipulated, due to an assumption of basic good faith.
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
“Customs knows how to do this,” Eaton said during a court hearing on Wednesday. “They do it every day. They liquidate entries and make refunds.”The court should just call the bluff by passing an order "Every CBP official and their hierarchy up to the President will be fined $1 million/day until the tariffs have been refunded."
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.
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.
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.
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").
And this is just wrong - anyone can see that every branch must be held accountable by other branches. This supreme court has done more damage to America than most historical supreme courts.
The JUDICIARY is the branch that lost power, not Congress.
I see what you're saying. As much as I dislike it, it makes sense if you agree with the Project 2025 view of the power of POTUS. Clearly the majority of SCOUTS does with that ruling. I don't agree with it as I don't think the founding fathers would have ever wanted POTUS to have that much protection, but I'm of no significance so what I do or don't agree with is just some guy on the internet yelling at clouds.
I guess that's three important things, not just one, but you get the idea.
We spent this whole time up until now exclaiming that it was actually the consumer who pays the tariffs, and now it’s the corporation that gets a “refund”.
That’s my money, assholes, give it back to me.
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 - promote operational leadership internally, charge a subscription, segment your ICP based on purchasing ability, and ruthlessly negotiate with vendors (eg. Costco's alcohol purchasing department has LVMH and by extension the government of France over a barrel as they are the single largest purchaser of wine globally, and from personal experience Kirkland's Single Malt Islay - retail of $35 - is a white label of Bunnahabhain's Cruach Mhona - retail of $150-200).
The bottom 50% shop at Walmart. The top 50% at Costco. It's an interesting symbiosis.
A Costco membership, a mid-end Toyota or Honda, maxing out your Roth 401K, putting the 50-60% that remains into a mixed VOO-VTI-VWO-VXUS strategy, upskilling as cheaply as possible (OMSCS@GT or UT Austin) and a 25 year roof is the path to riches.
[0] - https://www.businessinsider.com/how-costco-sams-club-shopper...
[1] - https://minesafetydisclosures.com/blog/2018/6/18/costco
The path to becoming a HNWI ($1M) or VHNWI ($5M) is doable for most SWEs over their career.
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.
Everybody but the proletariat class was in on this scam. It's a way to further take money from The People, and give it to companies.
Perhaps this Administration should ask Musk to bring in a team to revamp the systems involved to get these refunds "in the mail" quickly. The DOGE team must be done with the Social Security system rewrite by now so may be available for this task. Maybe Big Balls is free this weekend to take care of this...
If you actually paid the tariff you’re eligible. I got some surprise bills that I paid and didn’t sell off—I’m looking forward to being refunded.
Put another way, consumers who bought from an American retailer are being punished relative to those who paid an overseas seller.
I definitely have the receipts…
"... 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."
> ...
> “Customs knows how to do this,” Eaton said during a court hearing on Wednesday. “They do it every day. They liquidate entries and make refunds.”
It seems that CBP doesn't even provide a _reason_ for their inability to comply with the order (or this is some bad reporting and the reason was left out). I find that humorous and disappointing.
They say they're going to comply with the order, but they want 45 days to develop the required software changes and processes.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.193...
What cult brought us this mess?
Can I use this same argument to avoid paying my taxes because I spent all my income and didn’t set anything aside? No. Then?
Yes, you can. It's called Offer in Compromise (OIC).
See paragraphs 27-29.
Even the full text of the article says this.
Who benefits from pushing your view here? Who’s better off now that we’re all quieted down about this little bout of lawlessness?
Why don’t you just write “We didn’t see all the video and we need more context.”?
Besides, it is possible to both agree that these tariffs should never have been implemented in the first place and have some sympathy for the agency that has literally never had to do something like this at this scale before and is now under duress to come up with a working, legal, and fair mechanism for implementing one at breakneck speed.
Not me. They’re ordinary people doing administrative tasks. Most of them have dutifully turned up for work and done their jobs as the law required them to. They’re now being asked to work overtime to fix a mistake they didn’t make.
Besides, we’re taking about imposing tariffs, not depriving people of life or liberty. Have some persective.
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.
That's not what CBP said, and the article itself has the nuance that the headline doesn't