Connect with us

Business

After Supreme Court ruling, industries still face higher rates

Published

on

After Supreme Court ruling, industries still face higher rates

The Supreme Court during a rain storm in Washington, Feb. 20, 2026.

Annabelle Gordon | Bloomberg | Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump’s country-specific “reciprocal” tariffs are unconstitutional, delivering a win for many consumer companies facing higher import costs.

Advertisement

But the ruling doesn’t cover all sectors.

The Supreme Court reviewed tariffs enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, or IEEPA, which the Trump administration used to justify the sweeping tariff agenda. The act had never before been used by a president to impose tariffs.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA “does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”

Still, the Supreme Court’s ruling does not cover tariffs enacted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Those duties are intended to target specific products that threaten national security, and they remain in effect after Friday’s ruling.

Advertisement

Separate from his country-specific rates, Trump has raised tariffs on imports of steel, semiconductors, aluminum and other products deemed to impair national security.

Here are the sectors still facing higher levies even after the Supreme Court decision.

Autos

It’s not immediately clear how much the decision will impact the U.S. and global automotive industry. The industry continues to face billions of dollars in tariff costs, depending on where an imported auto part or vehicle originates.

The Trump administration last year broadly implemented 25% tariffs on vehicles and certain auto parts imported into the U.S., citing national security risks. It has since struck independent deals to lower the levies to 10% to 15% with countries such as the United Kingdom and Japan. Others, such as South Korea, have also struck deals for lower rates, but it’s unclear if those changes have actually taken effect.

Advertisement

“This is not a moment to ease up. The auto industry must stay nimble and ready to adapt, as further developments could quickly shift the operating environment,” said Lenny LaRocca, U.S. automotive lead for consulting firm KPMG. “Automakers should continue planning for multiple scenarios and keep supply chain considerations top of mind as the trade and tariff landscape continues to evolve.”

America’s largest automaker, General Motors, last month said it expects between $3 billion and $4 billion in tariff costs this year, and Ford Motor earlier this month said its net tariff impact is expected to be roughly flat year over year at $2 billion in 2026.

Neither Ford nor GM immediately responded to a request for comment on the Supreme Court decision and whether it changes those forecasts.

Pharmaceuticals

The pharmaceutical industry is facing a lot of uncertainty over tariffs. Trump has repeatedly threatened tariffs on pharmaceutical imports, though they haven’t yet taken effect, in part because of negotiated multiyear deals between the administration and drugmakers.

Advertisement

If that were to change, however, pharmaceutical tariffs would still be covered under Section 232.

The administration has floated imposing tariffs on the industry that could eventually reach up to 250%. Last July, Trump threatened 200% tariffs on pharmaceuticals, and the administration has already opened a Section 232 investigation into pharmaceuticals to investigate the impact of imports on national security.

The tariff threats are a move to push drug companies to manufacture in the U.S. instead of abroad.

In December, multiple companies inked a deal with Trump to voluntarily lower their prices in exchange for a three-year exemption from any pharma tariffs — as long as they invest further in U.S. manufacturing. That deal included major players like Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis and more.

Advertisement

Furniture

The furniture industry found little relief from Friday’s Supreme Court ruling.

Last fall, items like couches, kitchen cabinets, vanities and more were hit with higher tariffs under Section 232. The roughly 25% duties will remain in place even now that the IEEPA tariffs have been deemed unconstitutional.

The furniture industry is already facing greater uncertainty, with the 25% tariff expected to rise to 50% in 2027, and more broad pressures from higher interest rates and inflation.

Smaller companies are getting hit the hardest, with fewer resources to work with, while larger companies are facing bankruptcy, like Value City Furniture’s parent company, American Signature Furniture, which went out of business late last year.

Advertisement

Food and consumer packaged goods

Under Section 232, steel and aluminum imports into the U.S. are still carry tariffs.

With higher aluminum tariffs, companies like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Keurig Dr Pepper and Reynolds will continue to face higher costs associated with manufacturing their products.

Trump hiked aluminum tariffs to 50% last year.

Still, some of the key tariffs for the sector have been rolled back, even before Friday’s ruling.

Advertisement

In November, Trump issued an executive order exempting several hundred agricultural products, including bananas, coffee and spices, from tariffs. And in September, he similarly rescinded a 10% tariff on Brazilian pulp, a key component of paper towels, diapers and toilet paper.

— CNBC’s Mike Wayland, Annika Kim Constantino, Gabrielle Fonrouge and Amelia Lucas contributed to this report.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Business

Oscars spotlight crowns Brazil’s rise as a global entertainment player

Published

on

Oscars spotlight crowns Brazil’s rise as a global entertainment player


Oscars spotlight crowns Brazil’s rise as a global entertainment player

Continue Reading

Business

Venezuela’s students reclaim the streets after years of oppression

Published

on

Venezuela’s students reclaim the streets after years of oppression


Venezuela’s students reclaim the streets after years of oppression

Continue Reading

Business

Minneapolis grapples with lingering trauma, economic damage after ICE surge

Published

on

Minneapolis grapples with lingering trauma, economic damage after ICE surge


Minneapolis grapples with lingering trauma, economic damage after ICE surge

Continue Reading

Business

German Chemical Industry Warns of Supply-Chain Hit From Middle East War

Published

on

German Chemical Industry Warns of Supply-Chain Hit From Middle East War

Germany’s chemical industry is experiencing early signs of supply-chain disruptions from the war in the Middle East, with risks spreading beyond oil and natural gas to other raw materials, the country’s industry trade group said.

The business group, known as VCI, on Friday said the conflict in Iran and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz are raising concerns about supply bottlenecks for raw materials such as ammonia and phosphate, helium, and sulfur.

Copyright ©2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Continue Reading

Business

Bitcoin hovers near $71,000 as crypto investors track macro and liquidity signals

Published

on

Bitcoin hovers near $71,000 as crypto investors track macro and liquidity signals
Bitcoin traded near the $71,000 mark on Saturday as crypto investors tracked macro trends and liquidity signals ahead of the US Fed’s policy decision due later this week. The cryptocurrency was trading at around $71,260.

Over the past 24 hours, Bitcoin and Ethereum slipped 0.17% and 0.43%, respectively. Among major altcoins, BNB, XRP, Solana, Dogecoin, Cardano, and Hyperliquid declined by up to 2.20%, while Tron bucked the trend, gaining 1.48%.

Also Read | Domestic vs global investors: How silver ETF bets played out differently in 400% rally

Nischal Shetty, Founder, WazirX, said Bitcoin is trading around $70,000, a positive sign given that it’s the current resistance level. The market saw a consolidation phase between roughly $64,000 and $72,000.

At the moment, Bitcoin is attempting to stabilise within this range while investors monitor macro developments and liquidity conditions. While on-chain activities remain robust, retail users are trading cautiously, with experts predicting a normal retail activity rebound if Bitcoin sustains the upward momentum to reach $75k and beyond, Shetty further said.

In the past week, Bitcoin and Ethereum surged 4.62% and 6.41%, respectively. Among the major altcoins, BNB, XRP, Solana, Dogecoin, Cardano, Tron and Hyperliquid gained up to 22%.
Bitcoin briefly moved above the $73K level, previously its recent swing low, but failed to sustain the momentum, and at the peak, the price quickly pulled back by around 3.4%, said Piyush Walke, Derivatives Research Analyst, Delta Exchange
Also Read | Large, mid and small cap mutual funds see rising inflows in February. Is the shift back to equities underway?

Walke further said that a similar move was seen in Ethereum, which rose close to $2,200 before retreating roughly 4%, and the rejection near $73K suggests Bitcoin is encountering short-term resistance following its recent rally.

He also said that U.S. stock markets are also posting modest gains of about 0.5%, while equities point to a slightly improved risk environment, the broader crypto market appears to be pausing as traders reassess momentum ahead of the next potential directional move.

Advertisement

(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times)

If you have any mutual fund queries, message on ET Mutual Funds on Facebook/Twitter. We will get it answered by our panel of experts. Do share your questions on ETMFqueries@timesinternet.in alongwith your age, risk profile, and Twitter handle.

Continue Reading

Business

India revisits Press Note 3: Key clarifications to FDI framework for investments from land-bordering countries

Published

on

India revisits Press Note 3: Key clarifications to FDI framework for investments from land-bordering countries
On 17 April 2020, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, announced a significant change to India’s foreign direct investment policy (FDI Policy) through Press Note No. 3 (2020 Series) (Press Note 3). Pursuant to Press Note 3, any investment by an entity incorporated in a country sharing a land border with India, or where the beneficial owner of the investment into India is situated in or is a citizen of such a country, requires prior approval of the Government of India.

This change was introduced in the backdrop of the economic disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, with the stated objective of curbing opportunistic takeovers and acquisitions of stressed Indian companies. At the same time, the measure was widely viewed as a response to growing geopolitical concerns, particularly in relation to investments originating from China, given the rising tensions along the Indo-China border.

Ambiguities and practical challenges under Press Note 3

Under Press Note 3, any direct or indirect investment into India from an entity incorporated in a country sharing a land border with India, or where the beneficial owner of such investment is situated in, or is a citizen of, such a country (including China, Hong Kong, Macau and other neighboring jurisdictions), requires prior approval of the Government of India. However, neither Press Note 3 nor the subsequent amendments to the Foreign Exchange Management (Non-Debt Instruments) Rules, 2019 (NDI Rules) clarified the threshold for determining “beneficial ownership”. This lack of clarity was particularly notable given that other Indian legislations, such as the Companies Act, 2013 and the Prevention of Money Laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005, prescribe a 10% threshold for identifying beneficial ownership. In the absence of an express threshold under the FDI framework, considerable uncertainty emerged regarding both the ambit of the beneficial ownership test and the level within the ownership chain at which such ownership was required to be assessed.

Advertisement

In practice, investors often operate through multi-layered global structures spanning several jurisdictions. The absence of clear guidance on whether beneficial ownership needed to be traced up to the ultimate beneficial owner, coupled with the lack of a prescribed threshold, created significant interpretational challenges. As a result, even minority or non-controlling shareholdings held by investors from land-bordering countries, or minimal exposure to such investors within global funds, were frequently viewed as potentially triggering the requirement for prior government approval.
Consequently, a conservative interpretation of Press Note 3 emerged in practice, whereby any investment involving direct or indirect beneficial ownership from China, Hong Kong, Macau or other land-bordering jurisdictions, irrespective of the size of such ownership, could potentially require prior approval of the Government of India. This interpretation led to significant uncertainty and delays, particularly in the context of venture capital and private equity investments involving globally diversified investor bases.
In addition, the approval process itself often proved time-consuming. In several cases, obtaining approval under the Press Note 3 framework took anywhere between six and eight months, and sometimes longer. This significantly affected deal timelines and execution certainty, particularly for time-sensitive venture capital and private equity transactions.

Clarification to the Press Note 3 framework

Recognising the practical challenges associated with the implementation of Press Note 3, the Government of India has approved certain amendments aimed at providing greater clarity and improving the efficiency of the approval process. The amendments primarily address two aspects of the Press Note 3 framework, namely, the determination of beneficial ownership and the timeline for processing approvals in certain strategic sectors.

First, the amendment introduces clarity with respect to the concept of “beneficial ownership”. The revised framework aligns the determination of beneficial ownership with the standards prescribed under the Prevention of Money Laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005. It provides that investments where beneficial ownership from entities of countries sharing land borders with India is limited to non-controlling holdings of up to 10% may be permitted under the automatic route, subject to applicable sectoral conditions and reporting requirements. This clarification is intended to address the long-standing uncertainty surrounding the interpretation of beneficial ownership under the Press Note 3 regime. The amendment further clarifies that the beneficial ownership test shall be applied at the level of the investor entity, thereby providing greater certainty on the level at which such ownership is required to be assessed.

Second, the amendments introduce a time-bound approval mechanism. Under the revised framework, proposals involving such investments in sectors including capital goods, electronic capital goods, electronic components, polysilicon and ingot-wafer manufacturing are required to be processed and decided within 60 days. At the same time, the framework provides that majority ownership and control of the Indian investee entity must remain with resident Indian citizens or Indian-owned entities for the 60 days’ timeline to be applicable to it.

Policy implications of the amendments

These amendments signal a calibrated shift in the Press Note 3 regime by seeking to balance national security considerations with the need to facilitate foreign investment, particularly in strategic manufacturing sectors that form part of India’s broader industrial and technology supply chains. While the core objective of screening investments from land-bordering countries continues to remain intact, the amendments indicate an effort by the Government to address the practical challenges that had emerged in the implementation of the framework. The changes are also broadly aligned with the Government’s continuing focus on improving the ease of doing business in India, particularly by providing greater regulatory clarity and reducing uncertainty for cross-border investors.

Advertisement

The clarification that the beneficial ownership test will be applied at the level of the investor entity, along with the introduction of a 10% threshold for non-controlling beneficial ownership, is likely to provide significant relief to global investment structures. Venture capital and private equity funds often have diversified general partner and limited partner bases across multiple jurisdictions, including passive investors from land-bordering countries. Under the earlier interpretation of Press Note 3, even minimal exposure to such investors could potentially trigger the requirement for prior government approval. The revised framework reduces this uncertainty by carving out non-controlling holdings below the prescribed threshold, thereby enabling global funds to deploy capital into India with greater regulatory clarity.

Further, the introduction of a time-bound approval mechanism for investments in certain manufacturing sectors reflects the Government’s broader policy objective of strengthening India’s domestic manufacturing ecosystem, particularly in segments such as electronics and semiconductor supply chains. By committing to process such proposals within 60 days, the Government appears to be signalling its willingness to facilitate investments that contribute to India’s strategic industrial capabilities, while continuing to retain safeguards around ownership and control.

The real test, however, will lie in how these changes are implemented in practice.

(Moin Ladha is Partner and Tanish Prabhakar is Senior Associate at Khaitan & Co. Views expressed are personal.)

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

goeasy’s Investment Thesis Got Crushed Overnight, Don’t Buy The Dip (TSX:GSY:CA)

Published

on

goeasy's Investment Thesis Got Crushed Overnight, Don't Buy The Dip (TSX:GSY:CA)

This article was written by

I prefer to look for GARP (growth at a reasonable price) stocks but also look for opportunities everywhere else. I don’t have a specified time horizon. I invest in a stock for as long as my thesis holds true, and I get out when the facts change. In addition, I’ve developed market-beating algorithms with Python that have helped me find attractive investment opportunities within my own portfolio, and I have been investing since 2016.On top of that, I’ve worked at TipRanks as an analysis/news writer and even as an editor for a few years, which not only kept me on top of the market but also helped me understand what people are interested in reading. Further, as an editor, I learned to pay attention to detail and found that there’s plenty of misinformation and “fluff” out there that needs to be corrected. Thus, my goal is to provide accurate and useful information to the best of my abilities.I was previously associated with Investor’s Compass.

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, and no plans to initiate any such positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha’s Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Explosion lightly damages Jewish school in Amsterdam

Published

on

Explosion lightly damages Jewish school in Amsterdam


Explosion lightly damages Jewish school in Amsterdam

Continue Reading

Business

How China is wooing Paraguay’s political class away from longtime ally Taiwan

Published

on

How China is wooing Paraguay’s political class away from longtime ally Taiwan


How China is wooing Paraguay’s political class away from longtime ally Taiwan

Continue Reading

Business

Iran war fuel price hikes 'put our firm at risk'

Published

on

Iran war fuel price hikes 'put our firm at risk'

Drivers and businesses say the rising price of fuel is putting their livelihoods at risk.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025