Connect with us

Business

Supreme Court tariff ruling could allow over $160B in tariff rebates for firms

Published

on

Supreme Court tariff ruling could allow over $160B in tariff rebates for firms

The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a significant portion of the Trump administration’s tariffs that the justices found the tariffs were imposed illegally under an emergency economic powers law.

The Court issued a 6-3 ruling that held President Donald Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) was illegal as the law “does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The cases – Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections – were brought by a pair of small businesses: an educational toy manufacturer and a family-owned wine and spirits importer.

Advertisement

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, which did not discuss the issue of tariff refunds. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of the three dissenters, noted in his dissent that the issue of distributing tariff refunds was described during oral arguments as “likely to be a ‘mess’.”

“The United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others” Kavanaugh wrote. “Refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the U.S. Treasury. The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers.”

SUPREME COURT DEALS BLOW TO TRUMP’S TRADE AGENDA IN LANDMARK TARIFF CASE

Port of Charleston

The Supreme Court’s ruling didn’t outline a process for how tariff refunds may proceed. (Sam Wolfe/Bloomberg via Getty Images / Getty Images)

While the Court’s ruling doesn’t explicitly outline a process for refunds and the Trump administration hasn’t specified how it would handle refunds, importers who paid IEEPA tariffs will be able to bring litigation to pursue those refunds.

Advertisement

That could play out through claims made via the U.S. Court of International Trade or through appeals made to Customs and Border Protection, which collects tariffs and duties on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security and remits them to the Treasury Department. Importers typically have 180 days after goods are “liquidated” to file a protest and request refunds from CBP, which could factor into what importers are eligible to receive refunds.

KEVIN HASSETT SAYS FED ECONOMISTS SHOULD BE ‘DISCIPLINED’ OVER TARIFF STUDY

The nonpartisan Penn-Wharton Budget Model estimated that the reversal of the IEEPA tariffs will generate up to $175 billion in refunds.

A similar analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation estimated that more than $160 billion of tariffs were illegally collected under IEEPA through Feb. 20 of this year. It said that, “If the IEEPA tariffs are fully refunded to U.S. importers, it would erase nearly three-fourths of the new revenues from President Trump’s tariffs. The U.S. government should make the process for importers to receive their refunds as simple and transparent as possible.”

Advertisement
President Donald Trump speaks at Davos

President Donald Trump said the issue of tariff refunds will play out in court. (Denis Balibouse/Reuters)

What the Trump admin is saying about tariff refunds

Trump said at a press conference that the ruling was “deeply disappointing” and that he is “ashamed of certain members of the Court” for “not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.” 

The president went on to criticize the Supreme Court for not addressing tariff refunds in the decision and said that the issue will play out in court, and declined to say whether the administration would provide refunds.

“I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years. So they write this terrible defective decision, totally defective. It’s almost like not written by smart people. And what they do, they don’t even talk about that,” Trump said.

BATTLEGROUND STATES SHOULDER BURDEN OF TRUMP’S TARIFFS AS MIDTERM MESSAGING RAMPS UP

Advertisement

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a January interview with Reuters that, “It won’t be a problem if we have to do it, but I can tell you that if it happens – which I don’t think it’s going to – it’s just a corporate boondoggle. Costco, who’s suing the U.S. government, are they going to give the money back to their clients?”

Bessent added that the process for issuing tariff refunds could take a significant amount of time, saying that, “We’re not talking about the money all goes out in a day. Probably over weeks, months, may take over a year, right?”

scott bessent on fox news set

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said last month that the Treasury has the funds to issue tariff refunds, but warned the process may be time-consuming. (John Lamparski/Getty Images)

What experts are saying

Tim Brightbill, co-chair of Wiley International Trade Practice Group, said that the Supreme Court ruling “could lead to the refund of hundreds of billions of dollars in tariff revenue – so the question of whether there will be a refund process and what it will look like is extremely important.” 

“More than 1,000 lawsuits have already been filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade in an effort to secure tariff refunds in the event of a Supreme Court decision against the IEEPA tariffs,” Brightbill noted.

Advertisement

David McGarry, research director at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, said that the decision “does not make clear how this money will be returned to its rightful owners, but litigation on behalf of many illegally tariffed businesses is already commencing.” 

“The Supreme Court has ruled, and it is now the obligation of the Trump administration to ensure that this process carries on at minimal cost to American businesses – especially small businesses. Uncertainty is anathema to economic growth. Businesses ought to be confident that the money they were improperly compelled to hand over to the federal government will soon be returned,” McGarry added.

TARIFFS MAY HAVE COST US ECONOMY THOUSANDS OF JOBS MONTHLY, FED ANALYSIS FINDS

Donald Trump Liberation Day tariffs

Trump’s IEEPA tariffs were ruled illegal, as the underlying law doesn’t authorize the president to impose tariffs. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics at the Cato Institute’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, said that, “Most immediately, the federal government must refund the tens of billions of dollars in customs duties that it illegally collected from American companies pursuant to an ‘IEEPA tariff authority’ it never actually had.”

Advertisement

“That refund process could be easy, but it appears more likely that more litigation and paperwork will be required – a particularly unfair burden for smaller importers that lack the resources to litigate tariff refund claims yet never did anything wrong,” Lincicome added.

US BUSINESSES SHIFT AWAY FROM CHINA UNDER TRUMP TARIFFS

Nixon Peabody partner Joseph Maher, who served as the principal deputy general counsel of the Department of Homeland Security between 2011 and 2024, said that “there will be further litigation in the Court of International Trade to determine the remedies available for tariffs already paid,” adding that “U.S. importers should be vigilant to protect their interests in the payments demanded over the past year.”

JPMorgan chief economist Michael Feroli said that tariff rebates could pose an upside risk to the economy, though he noted “we won’t know the full amount or timing of any such rebates.” 

Advertisement

“While the official data from CBP is a bit stale, we estimate the amount at stake to be around $150-200 billion. If the rebates were passed on to consumers, the boost to activity would be significant. In the more likely event that businesses keep the cash, the boost to activity would be smaller, as estimates of the fiscal multiplier from windfall transfers to businesses are usually quite small,” Feroli wrote.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, noted that “small firms may struggle to get any money back from the U.S. Treasury,” and said that it’s “likely the White House will fight against issuing refunds at all.”

Advertisement
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