US small businesses protest Trump’s new tariffs | Stories of Trade Wars

At a hearing on Friday, two small businesses said the latest tariffs in 60 countries should be legally binding.

Two U.S. small businesses have challenged U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent tariffs on goods from 60 trading partners, saying the new plan, like many of Trump’s previous tariffs, went beyond the president’s duty to impose taxes on imports.

The lawsuit, which was filed Friday in a US trade court in New York, says the new tariffs require detailed national information on forced labor to be legally approved.

The two small businesses, backed by a non-profit legal group that successfully sued in previous cases, argued that the president was trying to roll back a tax that had already been ordered by the US Supreme Court.

The Trump administration on Friday imposed new tariffs of 10 percent and 12.5 percent on 60 trading partners, including the European Union, on the grounds that they are not doing enough to stop imports of manufactured goods. The new tax came into effect when the temporary 10 percent global rate expired.

Trump has made tariffs a central pillar of his foreign policy, using them as an opportunity to negotiate trade deals around the world. But the US The Supreme Court ruled against many of Trump’s tariffs on February 20, finding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not allow the president to impose taxes on business partners.

Trump responded to the decision by criticizing the court and imposing new and temporary tariffs of 10 percent worldwide under various jurisdictions. These tariffs, like the IEEPA tariffs, were also placed under a section of the law that no previous president had used to enforce, and were also ruled illegal by a US trade court. The Trump administration is complaining about the decision.

Friday’s tariffs were imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which is meant to combat unfair or discriminatory economic practices of certain nations.

Unlike IEEPA or the interim international administration, Section 301 has been used frequently by past presidents.

But governments and small businesses said in their lawsuit that the Section 301 tax has historically been targeted by other states and industries, and that Trump’s approach has no history.

Jeffrey Schwab, an attorney at the Liberty Justice Center who represents small businesses, said Section 301 does not include any authority to “impose an excise tax from all states at pre-established rates”.

The lawsuit asks the commercial court to declare the prices illegal, stop their enforcement and preserve the ability of importers to receive refunds for any illegal payments.

The two businesses that filed the suit are Burlap & Barrel, a cosmetics retailer that previously opposed Trump’s 10% global tax, and Collective Horology, a California watch retailer.