Latest news with #TariffAct
Business Upturn
20-06-2025
- Business
- Business Upturn
LT Foods faces U.S. trade setback as Ecopure slapped with 340% duty on organic soybean meal exports
By Aditya Bhagchandani Published on June 20, 2025, 16:34 IST LT Foods on Friday, June 20, announced that its step-down subsidiary, Ecopure Specialities Limited, has been hit with a steep countervailing duty (CVD) rate of 340.27% on its exports of organic soybean meal to the United States. The penalty stems from an administrative review conducted by the U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, covering the period from January 1 to December 31, 2023. The U.S. authorities invoked the 'adverse facts available' (AFA) methodology under Section 776 of the Tariff Act, 1930, after the review, which resulted in the imposition of the highest possible CVD rate. The decision was officially communicated to Ecopure via a memorandum dated June 13, 2025. Ecopure is currently assessing all legal options available in response to the ruling. LT Foods has clarified that the financial and operational impact of the order is yet to be determined and will be disclosed once more clarity is available. The development could pose a significant challenge for LT Foods' international trade outlook, particularly in its organic soybean meal segment. Ahmedabad Plane Crash Aditya Bhagchandani serves as the Senior Editor and Writer at Business Upturn, where he leads coverage across the Business, Finance, Corporate, and Stock Market segments. With a keen eye for detail and a commitment to journalistic integrity, he not only contributes insightful articles but also oversees editorial direction for the reporting team.
Yahoo
05-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Group Appeals to Farm Rio to End Partnership With Starbucks
A group of 17 labor unions, human rights organizations and watchdog nonprofits including Coffee Watch are calling on the lifestyle brand Farm Rio to end its partnership with Starbucks or change its policies. The coffee chain has come under fire this spring for allegations of child labor, trafficking workers and unsafe working conditions on a Brazilian coffee farm. A civil 'John Doe' lawsuit was filed against Starbucks in late April in the U.S. by eight individuals with the support of the International Rights Advocates. More from WWD From The Archive: Rio de Janeiro Fashion Scene, 1974 Todd Snyder Opens Nashville Store in 12South Neighborhood Dior Beauty Opens New Boutique in Miami A Starbucks spokesperson said Wednesday that the claims asserted are 'without merit' and the company plans to 'vigorously defend the Starbucks brand.' Coffee Watch filed a petition under section 307 of the Tariff Act asking U.S. Customs and Border Protection 'to block slavery-tainted Brazilian coffee in Starbucks' supply chains from entering the United States,' according to the letter, which was shared with WWD. In a statement, the Seattle-based company said, 'Starbucks is committed to ethical sourcing of coffee including helping to protect the rights of people who work on the farms where we purchase coffee from,' adding that its Coffee and Farmer Equity Practices include the use of 'robust third-party verification and audits.' Starbucks said it does not purchase coffee from all of the farms within Cooxupé's cooperative, which includes more than 19,000 coffee farm members. The spokesperson said, 'Starbucks purchases coffee from a small fraction of those farms, and only those who have been verified through our C.A.F.E. Practices, which are among the most stringent in the industry and have been continuously improved since their inception in 2004.' Starbucks and Farm Rio revealed their partnership last month for a limited-edition collection of colorful drinkware and mini cold-cup keychains that launched in the coffee chain's stores in the U.S. and Canada. They are also being sold in its outposts in Brazil and in select markets in Latin America and in the Caribbean. On Wednesday, a public relations firm working on behalf of the organizations that have appealed to Farm Rio's chief executive officer put the word out about their letter. Supporters of the letter are asking that Starbucks sever the partnership immediately or make it contingent on such demands as allowing employees worldwide to unionize and eradicating child labor from every part of its supply chain, ensuring farmworkers receive a living wage and publicly committing to upholding labor rights across its supply chain. The representative for the senders of the letter also provided a link to a video post that was made by the organization Contracs on 'X' that shows three protesters holding signs outside of a Farm Rio store in an unidentified shopping center in Brazil. Representatives at Farm Rio could not be reached for comment Wednesday. An outside public relations company that works with Farm Rio acknowledged a request for comment about the request to end the Starbucks partnership and said it had been shared with Farm Rio, but there was not a response at press time. Separately, Starbucks has been dealing with pushback from some employees in the U.S. about its new uniform policy. More than 1,000 workers — many of whom are associated with Starbucks Workers United — in 75 locations held a one-day strike in opposition to the mandatory dress code. Workers United is less than 5 percent of Starbucks' workforce, representing about 570 of its 10,000-plus stores, according to another Starbucks spokesperson. The letter to Farm Rio also noted that a fair contract with unionized workers in the U.S. has not been reached. Best of WWD Young Brooke Shields' Style Evolution, Archive Photos: From Runway Modeling & Red Carpets to Meeting Princess Diana The Most Memorable French Open Tennis Outfits With Serena Williams, Naomi Osaka & More [PHOTOS] Beyoncé's 'Cowboy Carter Tour' Outfits, Live Updates: Schiaparelli, Burberry, Loewe and More
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Utah father and son duo charged for allegedly supporting Mexican drug cartel
SALT LAKE CITY () — A father and son duo out of Utah are facing federal charges after being accused of supporting a Mexican cartel that has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization. James Lael Jensen, 68, of Sandy, and Maxwell Sterling Jensen, 25, of Draper, have been charged with conspiring to materially support the Mexican cartel, conspiracy to commit money laundering and related smuggling charges, according to U.S. Attorney Nicholas J. Ganjei. Utah couple arrested for smuggling millions of dollars of crude oil, documents say Per the indictment, the Jensens allegedly conspired to provide financial support to the Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generación (CJNG), a group that was in February. The Jensens allegedly operated Arroyo Terminals, a Rio Hondo-based enterprise, that reportedly helped 'conceal and disguise the nature and source of the proceeds of illegally smuggled goods' such as crude oil. Federal prosecutors further allege the father and son duo aided and abetted 2,881 shipments of oil in violation of the Tariff Act. At the time of their arrest, authorities reportedly seized four tank barges containing crude oil, three commercial tanker trucks, an Arroyo Terminal pickup truck and a personal vehicle. Authorities are also working on seeking forfeiture for the Arroyo Terminal property in Rio Hondo, crude oil contained in storage tanks owned by Arroyo Terminal and other real properties. 'What began as a Drug Enforcement Administration drug trafficking investigation evolved into a multifaceted case involving an alleged complex criminal operation generating millions of dollars from crude oil – the largest funding source for Mexican drug cartels,' said William Kimball, acting special agent in charge of DEA – Houston. 'Given the charges have profound implications for both the United States and Mexico, we will continue to explore all leads and identify any believed to be involved.' Nicholas Ganjei said the case underscores the more aggressive and innovative approach the Southern District of Texas is taking towards battling drug cartels. He said the strategy focuses not only on the traffickers and 'trigger-pullers' that are directly employed by cartels, but also their enablers. 'Whether you are handing the cartel a gun, providing a car or safehouse for smugglers, or putting money in the cartel's pocket, you will be held to account,' said Ganjei. Prosecutors said, if convicted, the charges of conspiracy to provide material support and money laundering both carry a possible prison term of up to 20 years. Both men could also face up to 10 years and five years for aiding and abetting the smuggling of goods into the United States and by doing so through false statements. James Jensen also faces one count of money laundering, which carries an additional 10 years in prison. The United States is also seeking a $300 million money judgment if the two are convicted. Charges are allegations only. All arrested persons are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. BLM to remove over 3,000 wild horses from Wyoming land Utah father and son duo charged for allegedly supporting Mexican drug cartel Stage 1 fire restrictions issued for multiple southwest Utah counties Fetterman claims media trying to 'smear' him over missed votes, absences Trump administration asks Supreme Court to lift judge's new block on mass layoffs Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Globe and Mail
31-05-2025
- Business
- Globe and Mail
Seek markets elsewhere: A found poem about tariffs
Claire Cameron is a novelist, essayist and author of the memoir How to Survive a Bear Attack. This poem was assembled using quotes from Canadian reporting about legislation passed in the United States in 1930, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. What is Canada? I Don't Have a Family Doctor To Sleep on the Street Charles Thirteen Halloweens
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The Nixon-era tariff fight that could help Trump
President Trump is looking to former President Nixon as proof that his global tariffs should be allowed to stand in court. Roughly five decades ago, 10% duties unilaterally imposed by the 37th president as part of a set of economic measures dubbed the "Nixon shock" were challenged in court in much the same way as Trump's 2025 tariffs have been. The US Court of International Trade struck down many of Trump's tariffs Wednesday (just as Nixon's duties suffered an initial defeat_ and an appeals court on Thursday allowed Trump's duties to temporarily stay in place while legal arguments continue. What has emboldened the Trump administration is that the Nixon-era Justice Department eventually won its case on appeal, an outcome that the Trump administration cited in court documents this week, predicting that its legal saga would likely turn out the same way. It told the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that "the Federal Circuit's predecessor concluded that the very same language that today exists" in a law used by Trump to justify his tariffs "gave President Nixon the power to impose an import duty surcharge." It was in August 1971 that Nixon imposed his temporary 10% tariff in addition to standard duties on all imported goods. Nixon said the duty was meant to help address the country's escalating deficit crisis and slow the tide of imports, as an additional measure to the administration's decision to suspend the US dollar's convertibility to gold. A Japanese zipper maker sued, saying Nixon lacked power to set the 10% tariff on foreign goods under three different laws that the government gave as justification: the Tariff Act, the Trade Expansion Act, and the Trading With the Enemy Act (TWEA). The most controversial of the justifications was the TWEA, a predecessor law to the 1977 International Economic Emergency Power Act that Trump cited as a basis for his multiple tariffs this year. The US Customs Court, a predecessor to the US Court of International Trade, initially sided with the zipper importer, holding that none of the three laws were adequate authority for the duty. Yet on appeal, Nixon's tariffs were upheld. While the lower court reasoned that "neither need nor national emergency" justified Nixon's tariff because Congress had not delegated such power and because the authority was "not inherent" in his office, the appeals court said the TWEA carved out enough power to regulate importation during an economic emergency. The Trump administration argued that language in the TWEA law, carried over to the IEEPA, should likewise permit Trump's tariffs. Its lawyers went on to say that the US Court of International Trade incorrectly applied the Yoshida case by distinguishing the Nixon tariffs as more limited than those imposed by Trump. In the Yoshida appeal, the court ruled that an emergency-based import duty must be appropriately and reasonably related to the emergency declared. Jonathan Entin, a constitutional law professor at Case Western Reserve University, said it's possible that Federal Circuit or Supreme Court judges will agree with the administration and conclude that the president does have broader authority than the Court of International Trade suggested. Entin said the lower court focused on two kinds of concerns related to the president's claimed authority under IEEPA. One is the "nondelegation doctrine," which says that Congress cannot give away its legislative authority, including its Constitutionally vested power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises" to the president or executive branch officials. A broad reading of IEEPA like the one that Trump suggests, he said, would raise real questions about whether Congress had essentially given away that authority. Another concern before the court is the "major questions doctrine," which has been recognized by the current Supreme Court to require Congressional approval for executive branch actions of 'vast economic and political significance.' "Those arguments clearly resonated with the court, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the Federal Circuit or the Supreme Court would agree on this," Entin said. The administration also hinted at its strategy in citing a federal appeals court case in its request to pause the US Court of International Trade order. In Florsheim Shoe Co. v. US, it said, the appeals court ruled that the president's motives, reasoning, findings and judgment in his decision to remove duty-free status on imported buffalo leather were exempt from judicial scrutiny. Seth Chandler, a constitutional law professor at the University of Houston Law Center, said he expects the dispute to end up before the Supreme Court. 'Obviously this issue has huge economic consequences, one way or the other,' he said. 'It will probably get there. So it's just a question of when.' Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
