4 ms·

CBP says it can't comply with refund order

72 points by DivingForGold 8mo ago

DivingForGold 8mo ago
Trump tariffs: Customs and Border Protection tells judge it can't comply with refund order of ~ $166 Billion
- jmclnx 8mo ago
  If that is the case, if people are not jailed for contempt of court, it shows what the tariffs were really for. Enriching the politicians and the 1%, which is all the US Gov. is for these days.
  - madaxe_again 8mo ago
    lol at “the 1%”. My man, it’s like the 0.0001%.
foxyv 8mo ago
Translation: "We already stole all the money to spend on Margaritavilles"
- mekdoonggi 8mo ago
  That would be too sound an investment
- nameless912 8mo ago
  Margaritaville Frozen Drink makers, specifically. A sound investment if I've ever seen one!
quantified 8mo ago
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.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 8mo ago
  Not passing another huge tax cut would go a long way towards helping the debt problem.
  - gzread 8mo ago
    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.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > 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. Put another way, consumers who bought from an American retailer are being punished relative to those who paid an overseas seller.
  - JKCalhoun 8mo ago
    Just got hit for $60 today from JLCPCB. I definitely have the receipts…
- krunck 8mo ago
  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.
teraflop 8mo ago
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.17270/gov.uscourts.cit.17270.25.0_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.172...
- anigbrowl 8mo ago
  I noted that too. 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.
- johnbarron 8mo ago
  Its because they would have to refund China...because...you know...China has been paying the tariffs...
- aw1621107 8mo ago
  > 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 https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/25-154.pdf
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
tedd4u 8mo ago
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.”
- nine_zeros 8mo ago
  "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."
  - PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
    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).
    - gzread 8mo ago
      That's only for crimes, isn't it? Ans it doesn't apply to anyone who isn't the president.
      - cheema33 8mo ago
        > 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.
        readthenotes1 8mo ago
        The strangest "The President is not King but we give home this power of a King" section in the Constitution.
        8mo ago
pinkmuffinere 8mo ago
> 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.
- nameless912 8mo ago
  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.
- teraflop 8mo ago
  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.19346/gov.uscourts.cit.19346.31.0_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.193...
gigatexal 8mo ago
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?
- PopAlongKid 8mo ago
  >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).
- Analemma_ 8mo ago
  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.
  - fortran77 8mo ago
    Poor people do this much more often than rich people.
    - polotics 8mo ago
      "more"... in number of cases, or in total amount of tax revenue lost?
    - behole 8mo ago
      I would love to see your source for this claim.
      - fortran77 8mo ago
        Sure: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/offer-in-compromise-faqs https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
hollywood_court 8mo ago
So much winning.
- recursive 8mo ago
  I'm getting tired of all this winning.
remarkEon 8mo ago
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.
- dboreham 8mo ago
  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.
  - alephnerd 8mo ago
    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 - 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-shoppers-differ-income-spending-habits-2025-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-costco-sams-club-shopper... [1] - https://minesafetydisclosures.com/blog/2018/6/18/costco https://minesafetydisclosures.com/blog/2018/6/18/costco
    - salawat 8mo ago
otterley 8mo ago
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.19346/gov.uscourts.cit.19346.31.0_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.193... See paragraphs 27-29. Even the full text of the article says this.
- adampunk 8mo ago
  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.”?
  - otterley 8mo ago
    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.
    - pavel_lishin 8mo ago
      I think you'll have to dig very deep to strike any sympathy for the CBP.
      - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
        > you'll have to dig very deep to strike any sympathy for the CBP 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.
cheema33 8mo ago
You stole $166 billion from people. And now that you've been caught, you are dragging your feet on giving it back and making excuses. What cult brought us this mess?
- salawat 8mo ago
  waves hand in general direction of Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and Trump voters I mean... It's really as simple as that. Follow the damn Benjamins.
uqual 8mo ago
The CBP seems to be asserting that they lack the technical resources to issue the refunds in a timely fashion. Thus, when they finally comply, they (well, the US taxpayer) will end up paying more interest - probably around $20M/day (assuming 4% and $175B in illegal tariffs collected). 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...
SanjayMehta 8mo ago
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."

72 points by DivingForGold 8mo ago

DivingForGold 8mo ago

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

jmclnx 8mo ago
If that is the case, if people are not jailed for contempt of court, it shows what the tariffs were really for. Enriching the politicians and the 1%, which is all the US Gov. is for these days.
- madaxe_again 8mo ago
  lol at “the 1%”. My man, it’s like the 0.0001%.

foxyv 8mo ago

Translation: "We already stole all the money to spend on Margaritavilles"

mekdoonggi 8mo ago
That would be too sound an investment
nameless912 8mo ago
Margaritaville Frozen Drink makers, specifically. A sound investment if I've ever seen one!

quantified 8mo ago

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.

0cf8612b2e1e 8mo ago
Not passing another huge tax cut would go a long way towards helping the debt problem.
- gzread 8mo ago
  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.
JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
> 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. Put another way, consumers who bought from an American retailer are being punished relative to those who paid an overseas seller.
- JKCalhoun 8mo ago
  Just got hit for $60 today from JLCPCB. I definitely have the receipts…
krunck 8mo ago
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.

teraflop 8mo ago

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.17270/gov.uscourts.cit.17270.25.0_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.172...

anigbrowl 8mo ago
I noted that too. 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.
johnbarron 8mo ago
Its because they would have to refund China...because...you know...China has been paying the tariffs...
aw1621107 8mo ago
> 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 https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/25-154.pdf

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

tedd4u 8mo ago

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.”

nine_zeros 8mo ago
"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."
- PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
  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).
  - gzread 8mo ago
    That's only for crimes, isn't it? Ans it doesn't apply to anyone who isn't the president.
    - cheema33 8mo ago
      > 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.
      - readthenotes1 8mo ago
        The strangest "The President is not King but we give home this power of a King" section in the Constitution.
        8mo ago

pinkmuffinere 8mo ago

> 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.

nameless912 8mo ago
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.
teraflop 8mo ago
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.19346/gov.uscourts.cit.19346.31.0_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.193...

gigatexal 8mo ago

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?

PopAlongKid 8mo ago
>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).
Analemma_ 8mo ago
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.
- fortran77 8mo ago
  Poor people do this much more often than rich people.
  - polotics 8mo ago
    "more"... in number of cases, or in total amount of tax revenue lost?
  - behole 8mo ago
    I would love to see your source for this claim.
    - fortran77 8mo ago
      Sure: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/offer-in-compromise-faqs https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...

hollywood_court 8mo ago

So much winning.

recursive 8mo ago
I'm getting tired of all this winning.

remarkEon 8mo ago

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.

dboreham 8mo ago
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.
- alephnerd 8mo ago
  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 - 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-shoppers-differ-income-spending-habits-2025-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-costco-sams-club-shopper... [1] - https://minesafetydisclosures.com/blog/2018/6/18/costco https://minesafetydisclosures.com/blog/2018/6/18/costco
  - salawat 8mo ago

otterley 8mo ago

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.19346/gov.uscourts.cit.19346.31.0_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.193... See paragraphs 27-29. Even the full text of the article says this.

adampunk 8mo ago
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.”?
- otterley 8mo ago
  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.
  - pavel_lishin 8mo ago
    I think you'll have to dig very deep to strike any sympathy for the CBP.
    - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
      > you'll have to dig very deep to strike any sympathy for the CBP 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.

cheema33 8mo ago

You stole $166 billion from people. And now that you've been caught, you are dragging your feet on giving it back and making excuses. What cult brought us this mess?

salawat 8mo ago
waves hand in general direction of Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and Trump voters I mean... It's really as simple as that. Follow the damn Benjamins.

uqual 8mo ago

The CBP seems to be asserting that they lack the technical resources to issue the refunds in a timely fashion. Thus, when they finally comply, they (well, the US taxpayer) will end up paying more interest - probably around $20M/day (assuming 4% and $175B in illegal tariffs collected). 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...

SanjayMehta 8mo ago

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."