U.S. trade court judge tells Trump to return tariff money. Ruling is absurd!

[egp320i]

.
See: Judge orders U.S. Customs to process refunds on illegal Trump tariffs

"Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan ordered the government to finalize the cost of bringing millions of shipments into the U.S. without assessing a tariff, according to a court filing. He ordered the refunds to be made with interest."

Why should Trump’s tariffs be refunded to anyone when they are permissible under one or more of the following statutes?

Tariff Act of 1930, Section 338

Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962;

Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974;

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974;

And, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.


Ignorance of the law is petitioner's problem.

LOL, tell him......he's not the treasury, it's not like the tariff money is in his bank account

 

[Eman623]

We do.

We did.

If you think the companies we bought the stuff from are going to refund any money to the little guys you are completely delusional.

There will be class action suits a plenty.

 

[Crepitus]

There will be class action suits a plenty.

And 20 years from now we'll all get a check for $0.97 in the mail from the settlement.

 

[scruffy]

And 20 years from now we'll all get a check for $0.97 in the mail from the settlement.

Liberals have a fertile imagination.

 

[Crepitus]

Liberals have a fertile imagination.

I'm a realist, not a tRumpling. I don't run on fantasies.

 

[scruffy]

I'm a realist, not a tRumpling. I don't run on fantasies.

You think you'll get money from the government.

 

[Slade3200]

.
See: Judge orders U.S. Customs to process refunds on illegal Trump tariffs

"Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan ordered the government to finalize the cost of bringing millions of shipments into the U.S. without assessing a tariff, according to a court filing. He ordered the refunds to be made with interest."

Why should Trump’s tariffs be refunded to anyone when they are permissible under one or more of the following statutes?

Tariff Act of 1930, Section 338

Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962;

Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974;

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974;

And, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.


Ignorance of the law is petitioner's problem.

Well, they weren’t actually permissible according to the SCOTUS. A SCOTUS I should add that is heavily conservative. Go figure

 

[drudge X]

We are.

No you’re not. Your side is in bed with big corporations since Covid.

 

[johnwk]

I know. Did you think I was standing otherwise?

I was agreeing with you and just added the list.

 

[johnwk]

You can't retroactively justify it under another law.

Maybe they can use it going forward, but the monies they have already collected were collected illegally.

We call that "theft", you know.

The tariffs were legal under one or more of Congress' Acts. S.C. said the tariffs were not legal under the IEEPA. Either the tariffs are legal, or they are not legal.

 

[Stann]

.
See: Judge orders U.S. Customs to process refunds on illegal Trump tariffs

"Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan ordered the government to finalize the cost of bringing millions of shipments into the U.S. without assessing a tariff, according to a court filing. He ordered the refunds to be made with interest."

Why should Trump’s tariffs be refunded to anyone when they are permissible under one or more of the following statutes?

Tariff Act of 1930, Section 338

Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962;

Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974;

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974;

And, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.


Ignorance of the law is petitioner's problem.

The importers passed on.the extra costs to the consumers. Why are the importers getting even more money out of the deal. The people are the losers in.thos miscarriage of justice.

 

[Eman623]

And 20 years from now we'll all get a check for $0.97 in the mail from the settlement.

That might actually cover it. I try very hard not to buy cheap Chinese crap in the first place.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/shelleykohan/2024/06/24/walmart-partners-with-american-giant-bringing-american-made-apparel-to-millions/

If I must buy shit made in China, at least I make sure it's a US based company.

 

[frigidweirdo]

.
See: Judge orders U.S. Customs to process refunds on illegal Trump tariffs

"Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan ordered the government to finalize the cost of bringing millions of shipments into the U.S. without assessing a tariff, according to a court filing. He ordered the refunds to be made with interest."

Why should Trump’s tariffs be refunded to anyone when they are permissible under one or more of the following statutes?

Tariff Act of 1930, Section 338

Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962;

Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974;

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974;

And, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.


Ignorance of the law is petitioner's problem.

Maybe the President should FOLLOW THE RULES, and then absurd things won't happen.

Trump is being punished for not doing his job properly.

Don't like it, don't vote for people who don't follow the RULES.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-91/pdf/STATUTE-91-Pg1625.pdf

"Any authority granted to the President by section 203 may be exercised to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat."

The law is kind of vague.

The president has to declare a national emergency. Which Trump did.

International Emergency Economic Powers Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Other presidents have declared a worldwide international emergency. Trump declared worldwide and specific ones for Mexico, Cuba, Canada, Venezuela and China. With the exception of the Venezuela one, all imposed tariffs.

The important part seems to be "Any authority granted to the President by section 203"

"SEC. 203. (a) (1) At the times and to the extent specified in section 202, the President may, under such regulations as he may prescribe,by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise—"

Here's the start of sec 203 in a light yellow color.

Sec 202 says:

"The authorities granted to the President by section 203 mayonly be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this title and may not be exercised for any other purpose."
So, the act can only be used for "an unusual and extraordinary threat"
Trump put tariffs on the UK. Claiming that there was a trade imbalance, the UK didn't had a trade imbalance with the US, not the other way around. So clearly Trump was putting a blanket over everything. Which is not a "threat" in any way, shape or form.

U.S. Trade Balance | Historical Chart & Data

External balance on goods and services (formerly resource balance) equals exports of goods and services minus imports of goods and services (previously nonfactor services). Data are in current U.S. dollars.

www.macrotrends.net

US worldwide trade imbalance. The last time the US didn't have a trade imbalance with the rest of the world was 1975. So, it's not "unusual or extraordinary" in the slightest.

"(A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit—
(i) any transactions in foreign exchange,
(ii) transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, to the extent that such transfers or payments involve any interest of any foreign country or a national thereof,
(iii) the importing or exporting of currency or securities; and "

This is part A of section 203.

He can regulate transaction in foreign exchange (not tariffs)
He can regulate transfers of credit or payments (not tariffs)
He can regulate the importing or exporting of currency and securities (not tariffs)

(B) investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest; by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

This is part B

He can regulate transactions involving property owned by foreign countries.

That's it. There's nothing there talking about tariffs

He can regulate property, he can regulate foreign exchange (as in, people buying and selling money), regulate transfers of credit or payment, and currency.

Nothing says he can use this act to put tariffs on GOODS coming in or leaving the country.

So, he used a law that didn't give him the powers to do what he did, and he got knocked back by a Supreme Court that has Roberts (appointed by a Republican), Gorsuch (appointed by Trump) and Barrett (appointed by Trump).

So, literally the case was decided by these three, three conservative appointments, two by Trump himself. It's not like this is a left wing court knocking back Trump's policies.

They literally didn't find that Trump had the power to do what he did.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That might actually cover it. I try very hard not to buy cheap Chinese crap in the first place.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/shelleykohan/2024/06/24/walmart-partners-with-american-giant-bringing-american-made-apparel-to-millions/

If I must buy shit made in China, at least I make sure it's a US based company.

But a lot of people don't really have the choice, because people like Trump are making sure the poor stay poor.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The tariffs were legal under one or more of Congress' Acts. S.C. said the tariffs were not legal under the IEEPA. Either the tariffs are legal, or they are not legal.

The IEEPA does not give Trump the power to impose tariffs. Any tariffs that used the IEEPA was done illegally and as such has been taken down.

Simple as.

 

[frigidweirdo]

lol.. US trade judge tells Trump to return the loot.

Why don’t leftists demand companies to return the money to consumers and lower the price drastically?

Great idea.

However very difficult. Trump just screwed over the poor guy (again).

 

[Crepitus]

You think you'll get money from the government.

Nope, I think I won't.

Try to pay attention for a change.

 

[Crepitus]

No you’re not. Your side is in bed with big corporations since Covid.

Nope. I just told you they are gonna rip off the consumers.

Try to pay attention for a change

 

[Crepitus]

The tariffs were legal under one or more of Congress' Acts. S.C. said the tariffs were not legal under the IEEPA. Either the tariffs are legal, or they are not legal.

Them he should have used one of those ways.

He fucked up.

You should be used to that by now.

 

[leftwinger]

It's total bullshit call by yet another total bullshit judge.
We need to fix this problem.
And soon.

A judge who thinks he has the final say-so? Is he right? Or that was before tariffs were re-issued under a different staus?//

JUST IN: Clinton Judge Orders Trump Admin to Refund $130 Billion in Tariffs | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the Trump Administration to refund $130 billion in tariffs.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

“The Chief Judge has indicated that I am the only judge who will hear cases pertaining to the refund of [International Emergency Economic Powers Act] duties,” Eaton wrote. “So there is no danger that another Judge, even one in this Court, will reach any contrary conclusions.”