logo
Trade court won't reinstate tariff exemption on low-value 'de minimis' shipments, for now

Trade court won't reinstate tariff exemption on low-value 'de minimis' shipments, for now

CNBC2 days ago
A federal trade court on Monday declined, for now, to block President Donald Trump's decision to end a longstanding tariff exemption for low-value packages shipped to the United States, known as de minimis imports.
A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the scope of the lawsuit, brought by auto parts retailer Detroit Axle, is already covered by another ongoing case challenging many of Trump's tariffs.
In that case, known as V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, the panel ruled against the Trump administration in late May, striking down Trump's sweeping "reciprocal" tariffs and other duties he had imposed.
But the decision was quickly paused by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, keeping Trump's tariffs in place while the legal battle plays out.
As a result, "This court has already granted, and the Federal Circuit subsequently stayed, all relief Axle requests," the lower-court panel wrote in Monday's ruling.
"We will not grant redundant, contingent relief through a preliminary injunction here," they wrote.
The court denied Detroit Axle's bid for a preliminary injunction and stayed its case, pending the outcome of the broader challenge to Trump's tariffs in V.O.S.
Oral arguments in that case before a federal appeals court are set for Thursday morning.
Detroit Axle sued the Trump administration in mid-May, challenging Trump's executive orders rescinding de minimis exemptions, which allow shipments valued below $800 to enter the U.S. duty free.
The loophole has been a boon for Chinese budget retailers like Shein and Temu.
But Detroit Axle's lawsuit argued that Trump's sudden scrapping of the tariff exemption, and his other "drastic and unlawful" trade policies, could wipe out its business in "a matter of months."
The retailer said that its contracts with Chinese manufacturers have helped it broaden its U.S. customer base with lower prices, while growing its business. But between 2018 and 2020, the company said tariffs imposed on Chinese goods during Trump's first presidential term threatened its business model.
That's when Detroit Axle sought to take advantage of the de minimis exemption, it said.
It opened a distribution facility in Juarez, Mexico, that imports auto parts from China and only fulfilled orders for less than $800, which were spared tariffs under the longstanding de minimis exemption.
But that model is now under "existential threat" from Trump's new tariff policies — especially his April 3 executive order that ended the de minimis exemption for Chinese imports by May 2.
That order said that Trump was "targeting deceptive shipping practices by Chinese-based shippers" who hide "illicit substances, including synthetic opioids, in low-value packages."
Nonetheless, "the impact on Detroit Axle has been swift and catastrophic," the company said in its lawsuit.
"Under the now-applicable Chinese tariffs, which have reached 72.5%, it is cost-prohibitive for Detroit Axle to import parts from its suppliers in China to its Detroit factory."
"Its frugal buyers will not bear the increased prices, and Detroit Axle cannot absorb them," the retailer wrote.
The company said it would exhaust its inventory by the end of June, forcing it to shutter its Michigan facilities and layoff hundreds of employees.
In a Michigan state filing in late June, the company said it would be closing its Ferndale warehouse and laying off 102 employees around Aug. 25.
"The decision to close this facility is due to unforeseen circumstance, specifically the sudden imposition of government tariffs, which have significantly disrupted our supply chain and sharply increased the costs of goods," Detroit Axle said in that filing.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Factbox-Trump tariffs threaten India's export edge; key sectors brace for impact
Factbox-Trump tariffs threaten India's export edge; key sectors brace for impact

Yahoo

time20 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Factbox-Trump tariffs threaten India's export edge; key sectors brace for impact

By Vivek Kumar M and Bharath Rajeswaran (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday slapped 25% tariffs on Indian goods, along with an unspecified penalty tied to energy and defence purchases from Russia — a move that, if enforced, could erode India's export competitiveness and weigh on investor sentiment. India's trade surplus with the U.S. — its largest export market — stood at 1.2% of GDP in 2024. Analysts warn halving that surplus could shave 25–40 basis points off GDP, undermining India's 'safe haven' narrative amid a global slowdown. The relative appeal of Indian markets has also faded, with local equities underperforming peers like Vietnam and Indonesia, which have secured trade pacts with Washington. CLSA said the tariff threat adds to uncertainty in an already expensive market. With negotiations set to resume in mid-August, markets expect the final tariff rate to be lower than 25%. But until clarity emerges, export-linked sectors face significant near-term headwinds. See below for a sector snapshot on who is exposed: PHARMACEUTICALS The U.S. accounts for nearly one-third of India's pharma exports (about $9 billion in FY24). Jefferies estimates a 2–8% EPS hit for Biocon, Sun Pharma and Dr. Reddy's, if generics are included. HSBC warns of an up to 17% downside to FY26 earnings forecasts. TEXTILES Exporters like Welspun Living, Gokaldas Exports, Indo Count and Trident derive 40–70% of sales from the U.S. Higher tariffs could shift market share to Vietnam, which benefits from lower U.S. duties. OIL REFINING A proposed penalty on Russian oil imports could hit Reliance Industries and state-run refiners Bharat Petroleum and Hindustan Petroleum. Companies may face higher costs if forced to diversify crude sourcing. AUTO COMPONENTS Automakers have limited U.S. exposure, but parts makers including Bharat Forge and Sona BLW are Motors' Jaguar Land Rover unit is shielded under U.S.-UK/EU trade arrangements. CAPITAL GOODS & CHEMICALS Cummins India, Thermax and KEI Industries have 5–15% U.S. exposure. Chemical exporters such as Navin Fluorine, PI Industries and SRF may face margin pressure, especially on refrigerant gas exports. SOLAR EQUIPMENT Waaree Energies and Premier Energies count the U.S. as a key market. Nearly 20% of Waaree's FY24 revenue came from the U.S., which also accounts for a major chunk of its 59% overseas current order book. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Editorial: Hands off — Trump's off-base attack on NYC's sanctuary immigration policy
Editorial: Hands off — Trump's off-base attack on NYC's sanctuary immigration policy

Yahoo

time20 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Editorial: Hands off — Trump's off-base attack on NYC's sanctuary immigration policy

Intentionally misstating New York City's sanctuary immigration policy as thwarting the prosecution of violent criminals, the Trump administration continued its war on local government by filing suit in federal court last week, one of a number of similar lawsuits across the country that conflate civil noncooperation with active criminal interference and attempt to conscript local officials into President Donald Trump's destructive crackdown. This should prove to Mayor Mayor Adams and other state and city leaders that no amount of appeasement is going to forestall the targeting from Trump. Adams met multiple times with immigration coordinator Tom Homan, insisting that the two men had 'the same goal,' making concessions like signing off on the opening up of an ICE office on Rikers Island years after a city sanctuary law had kicked them out. It's clear that Trump and Homan were not and probably could not be placated to the extent that they would leave Adams and New York City alone. The reality is that this is a totalizing project; Stephen Miller and the rest of the White House want to rid the country almost entirely of immigrants, with or without legal status, and regardless of where they are or what effect that will have on our economy and society. They've been routinely violating the law to do so. It's worth noting once more that Trump's is a political movement that often proclaimed itself a defender of state rights and local control, but apparently that only extended to allowing local officials to detain immigrants, pull books from school shelves, limit access to abortion, curb labor and environmental protections and drive LGBTQ people from public life. When it comes to a refusal to participate in federal operations that have so far involved masked and unidentified agents shoving people into unmarked vehicles — just the sort of thing that we would call authoritarianism and tyranny anywhere else — then states and localities get no say beyond being extensions of a central government. We're not particularly worried that any competent judge would accept these nonsensical claims. A day after the New York case was filed, a federal judge in Chicago dismissed the Trump lawsuit against that city's sanctuary immigration policy. We just want to remind readers that sanctuary is not immunity from prosecution, especially prosecution for violent crimes. What it is however is that when someone is treated at a city health clinic for TB or enrolls a child in school or reports a crime to the police as a victim or a witness, the person's civil immigration status is irrelevant. We want everyone in the city to get treated when sick, we want all children to be in school, we want all crime victims and witnesses to come forward to the cops. The idea of anti-commandeering — the notion that the federal government can't force state and local governments to carry out its own agenda and enforcement functions — has been foundational from the genesis of our country's federalized system. The right of jurisdictions to enact sanctuary provisions that block the use of local resources for this federal function has been litigated over and over again, and always found to be on solid legal footing. We are, however, more worried about the U.S. Supreme Court, which has in the past several months taken it upon itself to sign off on Trump's expansive power grabs. It has allowed among other things Trump to fire federal employees and independent agency members in direct contravention of statute, allowed the limiting of a nationwide order blocking Trump's attempt to overturn the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship provisions and allowed parents to impose religious beliefs on whole school curricula. If these questions get up to that high court level, we hope that the justices will exercise some of their independent power, as they did on other absolutely egregious instances like Trump's efforts to remove people without due process under the Alien Enemies Act proclamation. Anything else will destroy the trust of people in their own local officials and governments and strike at the very foundation of this country's system of government. _____

What's in the US-EU trade deal depends on who is doing the talking
What's in the US-EU trade deal depends on who is doing the talking

Yahoo

time20 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

What's in the US-EU trade deal depends on who is doing the talking

President Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen shook hands Sunday over a trade agreement touted as being largely concluded, but days later, there are still plenty of disagreements about exactly what is in the pact. Perhaps nowhere is the divide more stark than in the summaries published by each side — one from the White House and another from the European Commission. They depart in at least five areas, both in terms of the deal and the firmness of the commitments. In just one example, the White House summary touts "historic structural reforms and strategic commitments," while the Europeans call the handshake deal "not legally binding," with more negotiations to come. Trump quipped Sunday that a deal would be "the end of it" and that it would be a number of years "before we have to even discuss it again." That is unlikely to be the case, which even Trump's aides acknowledge. The difference is likely to come to a head quickly as negotiations continue between the US and Europe over legally binding text and as trade watchers wait for a formal joint statement on the deal that the teams still hope to unveil this week. A range of areas of disagreement Clarity on at least one headline area is clear: an agreement for 15% tariffs on nearly all EU goods, including autos, semiconductors, and pharmaceuticals, that will be exempt from separate Trump plans there. But the divides are evident once you go deeper. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick acknowledged that a lot remains to be worked out when he told CNBC on Tuesday that "there's plenty of horse trading still to do," even as he argued that the "fundamentals" are set. Read more: What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet Trump has also already set a pattern of fuzzy initial details on his deals, including a recent pact with Japan, but a comparison of the two documents summarizing the Europe deal underlines differences on many of the key aspects. On the issue of new investments by Europe — $750 billion in US energy and additional corporate investments of $600 billion — the summary from the US side described them as firm commitments. The European language is much less solid, saying it "intends to procure" additional energy and that European companies "have expressed interest" in additional investments. More differences are seen on whether the deal will mean European markets are "totally open," as Trump has said. The European summary of provisions around fish says they will allow "limited quantities" and only "certain non-sensitive" agricultural products. Another highly touted part of the agreement from the US side is a provision for Europe to purchase military equipment. As Trump said on Sunday, "They're going to be purchasing hundreds of billions of dollars worth of military equipment." That part isn't even mentioned in the European summary. Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store