Of 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 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...

CIT Judge Eaton:

    “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.”

"Lies" is a standard operating procedure under this administration.

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."

SCOTUS has already given the President complete immunity for anything done as part of an "official act", so that's not going to fly (even if it should).

That's only for crimes, isn't it? Ans it doesn't apply to anyone who isn't the president.

Isn't it only immunity as long as Congress is controlled by the same party so that no impeachment/conviction? Otherwise, Congress technically still has that ability. That's also what Trump was screaming the whole time that Congress is the only way to hold POTUS accountable.

Corporate welfare at its finest.

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.

Thats also why there was such harsh and immediate pushback on listing tariff costs with items purchased.

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.

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.

This is going to be such a continued mess. Refund it to the companies that paid the tariffs, it's quite the windfall. Consumer refunds ain't gonna happen. Economically, under usual times, the best thing to do with it would be to pay off some national debt with it, the deficit is out of control. But with $38T of debt, nothing really makes a dent.

Agreed. I'm hesitant to give money back to companies that have already passed the cost of tariffs on to the the consumer. But I'm 100% against the government keeping money it took illegally. And the court can only require that the money be refunded to those that paid the tariffs. Therefore I am ok with that.

> Consumer refunds ain't gonna happen

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.

Just got hit for $60 today from JLCPCB.

I definitely have the receipts…

Not passing another huge tax cut would go a long way towards helping the debt problem.

Or just running the economy into the ground until it doesn't matter how many dollars anyone owes anyone because there's nothing you can buy with them.

Thankfully we have the actual court filing to refer to get the full picture, in which CBP says they are working on a way to process refunds more efficiently than they are able to today, and they aim to do so within 45 days: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.193...

See paragraphs 27-29.

Even the full text of the article says this.

I don’t think the reporter is being lazy. I think you’re trying to muddy the situation.

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.”?

I’m not trying to muddy any situation. I don’t have to: Reality has a lot of nuance.

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.

I think you'll have to dig very deep to strike any sympathy for the CBP.

The headline is absolutely declarative. CBP can't comply. Period.

That's not what CBP said, and the article itself has the nuance that the headline doesn't

> U.S. Customs and Border Protection told a Court of International Trade judge on Friday that it is not currently able to comply with his order to begin refunding reciprocal tariffs imposed last year by President Donald Trump, which the Supreme Court recently ruled are illegal.

> ...

> “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.

CBP's declaration (which the article links to) has more details. They're arguing that they can't currently issue refunds, and they can't even currently stop IEEPA duties from being charged on future liquidations, because of software limitations.

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...

And they used their supposed ability to refund tariffs as justification for continuing to charge them during a court case last year, per another comment in this thread. We live in unserious times.

Tough. They gotta pay it. Send an email to the treasury and pull from the billions stolen from importers and pay it back.

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?

>Can I use this same argument to avoid paying my taxes because I spent all my income and didn’t set anything aside?

Yes, you can. It's called Offer in Compromise (OIC).

You absolutely can, if you're rich. Rich people settle their tax debts with the IRS for pennies on the dollar all the time, with the threat of dragging the government into years of expensive litigation if the offer isn't accepted. You and I, of course, don't have this option.

Poor people do this much more often than rich people.

Trump tariffs: Customs and Border Protection tells judge it can't comply with refund order of ~ $166 Billion

Margaritaville Frozen Drink makers, specifically. A sound investment if I've ever seen one!

That would be too sound an investment

So much winning.

I'm getting tired of all this winning.