Today's Ruling - Now there's all this uncertainty again!!
Summary: The discussion revolves around the current uncertainty following a recent ruling. Multiple participants are expressing their concerns and confusion about the implications. sapphyres-designer-jewellery and lacemaker3 seem particularly focused on understanding the impacts, while others like codacloset and ypdc_dennis join in to contribute to the conversation. The talk appears to be ongoing with no clear resolution reached yet. The situation seems to have created a mix of reactions and expectations among the participants.
I didn't like the tariffs, on my US eBay store they were baked in the price (where it applies, if the tariff rate was too high I just took those items down and put them in the Canadian store with no US shipping). The thing is, I got used to how things have been for the last six months, managed to build trust with my customers and everything was going along OK.
I'm not sure if the ruling will result in good change or worse problems going forward, that remains to be seen because we don't know what tricks DT has up his sleeve for keeping the tariffs.
I want some answers from Stallion, they've been mum on the subject and there are some things I'd really like to know (somewhat soon since I have items to ship).
The ruling is that they're illegal, but supposedly some tariffs are OK, would like to see the tariff calculator updated so I can update my invoices on things I'm sending out (since the tariff is baked in, my invoice shows the total the customer paid and how much of it is tariff, so I'm not paying the tariff on what the customer pays, it's included with necessary price adjustments).
I'm wanting to know if Stallion is going to get refunded in all the tariffs they collected and paid, and how they plan to return that money to us. I'm owed several hundred.
There's more question that I have, like about de minimis, but I don't think anyone has any answers. I also want to know about this new EO with a sweeping 10% of tariffs, that ties in with updating the duty calculator so I can adjust prices appropriately and have accurate invoices on items I'm shipping.
I'm also waiting for someone who paid these baked in tariffs to send me a message asking for a refund on the "tariff" portion of their invoice. That's going to come up in tonight's eBay meeting so I can have a response prepared if I get such a question.
C.
sapphyres-designer-jewellery
OP5 months agoI found this regarding IEEPA Tariff Refunds:
According to Stallion and all the things I had to sign to ship with them, the importer of record is actually me (and I'm the exporter as well).
So if the importer of record gets the refund, then I should ask how I can do that. I'm still waiting to find out if Stallion is getting involved with that because they paid it on my behalf. But according to my records of shipments with Stallion ALL tariffs that I remitted were IEEPA tariffs. And according to my tracking sheet where I recorded how much was paid in tariffs, it appears that I'd be owed $850 CAD.
C.
lacemaker3
·5 months ago@sapphyres-designer-jewellery,
Well that information is promising! (I have never found a definition before for exactly what "importer of record" means.)
I found this information, which was just published today, in response to the SCOTUS ruling. It's still not definite, they are speculating, but this company (Avalara, which generally has very reliable information), also says that if refunds are possible, the importer of record would need to make the application.
https://www.avalara.com/blog/en/north-america/2026/02/how-to-request-tariff-refunds.html
I hope this works out well for you. I think it is very unfair to make sellers pay this without being able to collect the tariffs from the buyers.
sapphyres-designer-jewellery
OP5 months agoNeed to wait for word from Stallion, as of tonight they had received no official direction from either CBP or their Customs broker. The thing is, Stallion uses a broker, so the broker can act as the importer of record which means the broker is responsible for getting Stallion their refund (which they can credit accounts of their customers). Without tariffs to pay on my packages, it might take me a long while to use $850 CAD in credits on their site (I would gather they will pay in credits, not money). When I had to remit tariffs on some shipments, I had packages that cost $50-60 CAD to ship because of tariffs on certain items in the packages.
So I'm not sure that I personally can apply for the refund, but I may be the person who is entitled to it based on that definition (as opposed to a buyer sending invoices to get tariffs refunded). I saved copies of all the invoices, so I know which packages had tariffs, how much, and on what items.
I think the way it will end up is Stallion will advocate to get the refund for their customers, but as this all came down fairly late today, we might have to wait until Monday or Tuesday to find out what's going on.
C.
ypdc_dennis
·5 months agoI wouldn't be too hopeful of refunds in the near future...
When pressed by reporters in Washington if he would refund the tariffs, Trump said it was not discussed in the court’s decision and expects the matter to be litigated in the courts over the next several years.
- Ottawa Citizen newspaper
lotzofuniquegoodies
·5 months agoThat covers the back and forth for tariffs. What about all the funds paid for customs processing. Not really chump change? Dreamworld would see that refunded but isn't going to happen.
lacemaker3
·5 months ago@sapphyres-designer-jewellery
The SCOTUS ruling only applies to the tariffs that were applied through IEEPA (the IEEPA tariffs). Other tariffs and duties, that were applied before or since this ruling, still apply. That would include the 10% tariff announced today, and any pre-existing duties.
The ending of the de minimis exemption is not affected. The ruling does not mention either de minimis, or the Executive Order 14324, which ended it. SCOTUS only ruled on the legality of the IEEPA ttariffs (ruled that IEEPA cannot be used to impose tariffs).
The other applicable duties, etc. that apply for a package being imported into the USA still have to be paid for goods being transported by non-postal carriers (which would include Stallion and ChitChat, UPS, FedEx, etc.).
What duty rate (if any) would apply for packages being transported by postal carriers (like Canada Post) is not clear. That is what everybody has to wait to find out.
sapphyres-designer-jewellery
OP5 months agoMy items all appear to be "duty free" and only have IEEPA tariffs applied.
But I use Stallion to ship to the US and pay IEEPA tariffs to Stallion (for them to remit to CBP). If the IEEPA tariffs are invalid, does that means Stallion will get all the money back and be able to refund us?
C.
lacemaker3
·5 months agoAt this point, it is not clear whether there will be any refunds of the IEEPA tariffs ... we have to wait and see ...
But if there are refunds, I think it is considered that the importer of record (the buyer) was responsible for paying for the tariffs, so they would have either been part of the purchase price or the shipping the buyer paid. There's a process in place for a receiver/buyer to file for a refund (called a drawback) from the USCBP for import fees that were charged incorrectly. If they follow the process that's already in place, I think it would have to be the buyer who requests the refund.
sapphyres-designer-jewellery
OP5 months agoThey buyer paid the tariffs if they ordered something online (or a business ordered a crate of goods), and paid tariffs to receive it
On postal imports the seller paid the tariffs and they'd be baked in (some people made special listings for tariffs to be collected, that's a whole other can of worms). When Zonos and Stallion collected tariffs, they collected them from me. It was baked into the price in my US store (mostly 10-15% tariffed goods), but I have receipts from Stallion saying I paid these tariffs.
C.
codacloset
·5 months agoThe de minimis was ended under the whole IEEPA umbrella of tariffs. The de minimis or Executive Order weren't mentioned in the ruling because the IEEPA tariffs are inclusive of this. The lower courts tied in the Chinese de minimis tariffs with the general IEEPA tariffs and denied injunctions from several companies. I see no reason why the SC wouldn't do the same. The de minimis was eliminated due to a "global emergency" and Trump cited IEEPA as a primary reason to elimiate the de minimis. The tariffs were found to be illegal and thus ending the de minimis would fall under the same category.
lacemaker3
·5 months agoI don't believe that interpretation is correct.
The SCOTUS ruling held:
"IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The judgment in No. 24–1287 is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; the judgment in No. 25–250 is affirmed." (Page 2)
and that was it. They published a lot of discussion and reasoning, but that was the ruling. They did not rule on anything else the president has done based on IEEPA, and they did not rule against IEEPA itself.
Now we have to wait and see what happens with the implementation.
By a strict interpretation of Executive Order 14324 Suspending Duty-Free De Minimis Treatment for All Countries, packages being transported by non-postal carriers will still be subject to any other duties, fees and tariff, just not including the IEEPA tariffs any more.
However, EO 14324 also said that packages being transported by postal carriers were only subject to the IEEPA tariffs, which have now been ended. What will happen with those? Will postal shipments be effectively duty free up to $2500, at which point they have to go through formal entry? We have to wait and see.
lacemaker3
·5 months agoToo late to add:
The end of the de minimis exemption (effective in 2027) was authorized by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) which was passed by congress July 1, 2025, and signed by POTUS July 4, 2025. The EO 14324 just pulled the implementation date forward, and provided details of how it would be implemented.
lacemaker3
·5 months agoThat was fast ... there has been another presidential action, issued one day after the ruling, stating that
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/02/continuing-the-suspension-of-duty-free-de-minimis-treatment-for-all-countries/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/02/imposing-a-temporary-import-surcharge-to-address-fundamental-international-payments-problems/