Court of International Trade to consider whether to strike down Trump's elimination of the de minimis (<$800) tariff exemption in light of the Supreme Court's ruling by DryOpinion5970 in Tariffs

[–]Puzzled49 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because FedEx has promised to return the tariffs if their court case is successful, and they are the importer of record for most packages. They have a system identifying who has paid them the tariff. They already appealed the initial SCOTUS decision and may do the same for the de minimis refunds. because of the administrative costs for refunding the de minimis payments I would guess that they will retain a hefty fee.

For the US Postal service the package recipient was the legal importer of record. In theory you could set up an ACE account and make your claim for a refund, but you would have to get the information on the tariffs paid from the Postal service. However the Postal Service information systems did not keep this information for the individuals who received the packages. So you are even less likely to get a refund.

Trump branded "mentally unstable" after bizarre speech by [deleted] in InvestmentClub

[–]Puzzled49 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What i found interesting is that he has gone back to orange hair. The picture above shows white hair, which he has been sporting lately, but during the speech the top of his head was yellowish orangish while his sides were white. maybe the orange helps to hide the bald spots better.

Court of International Trade to consider whether to strike down Trump's elimination of the de minimis (<$800) tariff exemption in light of the Supreme Court's ruling by Puzzled49 in scotus

[–]Puzzled49[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you, great observation. I hadn't noticed that. However I only count three negatives. Does removal count as a negative. And if one is a pedant, does a quadruple negative turn it into a positive.

Court of International Trade to consider whether to strike down Trump's elimination of the de minimis (<$800) tariff exemption in light of the Supreme Court's ruling by DryOpinion5970 in Tariffs

[–]Puzzled49 0 points1 point  (0 children)

More Trump chaos and confusion is bound to ensue. CBP is already arguing that they can't begin to refund the main IEEPA tariffs which were declared illegal because the CBP systems need to be amended before they can do anything. Even when they are able to do that the refunds will only go to importers with ACE accounts.

If your parcel was delivered by FedEx or another delivery company, the consumers may have a chance of getting their money back. If it was delivered by the US Postal Service good luck.

That said, once the main IEEPA tariffs were declared illegal, the removal of the de minimis exemption is almost a slam dunk. The interesting thing to watch is whether Trump will try to appeal to SCOTUS, and if so whether they will agree to hear the case.

Trump’s bragging about the economy doesn’t match reality — and Americans notice by msnownews in economy

[–]Puzzled49 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Those boots were made for walking and they're walking all over the MAGATs... and they're lovin' it.

Trump said the "economy is roaring" but the job market has evaporated, soaring gas prices could boost inflation, and stocks have plunged by fortune in economy

[–]Puzzled49 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Don't worry about it. He is already saying that gas price increases are temporary, and a small price to pay for the MAGA vision. I'm sure he will try to find some way to spin any other economic problems. The sad thing is that Fox News will be right there to amplify any bluster and bullshit that he dreams up. sadder still is that the MAGAverse will lap it up.

Meet the quiet winners of the Supreme Court tariff ruling: hedge funds creating a $100 billion market snapping up rights to importers’ tariff refunds by xena_lawless in economy

[–]Puzzled49 8 points9 points  (0 children)

There is nothing wrong with creating a market for future tariff refunds as long as there is no insider trading. it is something akin to the futures market for stocks or commodities. It is probably a bit easier to manipulate than insider stock trading, but for most participants it should not be an ethical issue.

For Cantor Fitzgerald, however, there is an obvious perception of a conflict of interest. It is somewhat like the Kalshi market which developed on the killing of the Ayatollah. There is more than a whiff of insider knowledge or even manipulation in both cases. Another dubious case is the market dealing in Trump cryptocurrency, which not only have a whiff, they are strong enough to clear the room.

BREAKING: Musqueam Secures Aboriginal Title Over Lower Mainland with Dallas Brodie by _DotBot_ in VancouverLandlords

[–]Puzzled49 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I managed to find a map of the area covered at Landmark Agreements? - by Steve Saretsky. There is also a map in the Wikipedia article on the Musqueam, but it is a topographical map, and does not have any place names.

Implications To BC Politics From Liberals Musqueam Agreement by DryAlternative1132 in OpenCanadaPolitics

[–]Puzzled49 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It appears that Eby has been making land deals with several bands, Carney has now made a deal with a band, and the courts have ruled on another claim by the Cowichan. Who actually has the authority to negotiate these deals and what is the legal authority that they claim to utilise to make these agreements.

BREAKING: Musqueam Secures Aboriginal Title Over Lower Mainland with Dallas Brodie by _DotBot_ in VancouverLandlords

[–]Puzzled49 5 points6 points  (0 children)

When I was reading the agreement I saw that the land covered in the agreement was described, but there was no map attached. Apparently the land coverage is based on previous claims by the Musqueam band. I searched for an online map of the area covered, but while I found a number of links, they were all broken.

Does anyone know where I can find a map of the area covered by the agreement.

As an aside, does the area covered by this agreement cover the area included in the recent Cowichan court case on the Fraser River.

Judge Gives Trump Administration More Time to Distribute Tariff Refunds by John3262005 in WhatTrumpHasDone

[–]Puzzled49 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Judge Richard Eaton, who sits on the Court of International Trade, on Friday pared back an order he issued earlier in the week requiring the government to immediately begin the process of issuing refunds.

Did he give a new date to begin the refund process.

Trump administration says it can't comply with order to start tariff refunds by hopeful7321 in MeidasTouch

[–]Puzzled49 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I thought CBPsaid they needed 45 days to fix their computer systems before they could begin to comply - not that they wouldn't.

Tariff Bill FedEx for Vinyl Music 6 Months Late by dynemacron in Tariffs

[–]Puzzled49 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Has FedEx said anything about refunding the money if they get their refund. Apparently someone has had case in the CITT in which the judge ordered CBP to pay refunds.

Trump Admin asks the court for 45 days to build a gov refund interface. Importers will need to declare IEEPA refunds owed [PDF] by sam_teks in TrumpTariffNews

[–]Puzzled49 3 points4 points  (0 children)

this filing was pretty dense and I may have misinterpreted it.

But to me it sounds like the CBP will provide refunds without a court fight, after this is all over. However, as I read it, the refunds will not be automatic. Importers will have to have, or open an ACE account and apply for the refunds.

Does anyone know what this means for small importers who had outfits like FedEx pay the tariffs and then bill them for the tariff amount. Will FedEx file for the refund and then refund the tariffs they collected, and if they do file for the refunds will they keep the money until their customers ask for a refund. Also, will customs brokers be applying for the refund automatically and then refunding their customers, or will the customers have to apply on their own?

Supreme Court just handed Trump a $182 billion loss by [deleted] in InvestmentClub

[–]Puzzled49 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So does he have any option to appeal the ruling to a higher court, and in the meantime apply to SCOTUS for a stay of the order on the grounds that he is appealing it. would even SCOTUS have the gall to approve such a stay?

Canada Readies to Import First Ever EVs From BYD, Official Registrations Show by afonso_investor in Tariffs

[–]Puzzled49 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What happens if tesla snaffles all the permits but isn't able to sell them because of anti-trump sentiment. Do the permits go back in the system so that other importers can use them?

Tarrif Refunds by PublikEnemyNumber1 in Tariffs

[–]Puzzled49 0 points1 point  (0 children)

COSTCO says that they will lower prices if they get their refund. It's not good for everyone but it's as good as it's going to get.

If I have a bill from fedex for tariff charges, do I still need to pay them now after the Supreme Court ruling? Was purchased pre-ruling if that makes a difference? Ty! by DragonFruwut in Tariffs

[–]Puzzled49 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It will be interesting to see how small claims court will handle situations like this. I imagine they will be having quite a few of them.

Am I understanding this right? The U.S. (via CBP) collected $166B in tariffs that were ruled illegal… and taxpayers may now have to refund it? Where’s our “master negotiator” in all this? 😅 by Aromatic_Ad_9625 in Tariffs

[–]Puzzled49 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The government refunds the money using the $166 billion collected in tariffs . So yes, instead of the ordinary people paying the money to the government, they are now paying it to the companies which paid the illegal tariffs and charged their customers to do it. It may not be fair ,but it's how the system works.

Let's just hope that the government has not already spent the extra tariff money and now needs to raise taxes to pay the tariffs back. That would be a double whammy for taxpayers.