The Federal Appeal Court temporarily repeats the customs tariff Trump International Trade News

The Federal Appeal Court has prepared temporarily (Pdf(US President Donald Trump’s tariff, a day after a commercial court ruling that it exceeded the powers granted to the president.

The United States Court of Appeal prevented the Federal Department in Washington temporarily the court’s decision on Thursday, but it did not provide any reason for the decision, only granted the prosecutors until the fifth of June to respond.

The Federal Court of Appeal granted an emergency proposal from the Trump administration on the pretext that stopping “is it very important to national security in the country.”

The White House applauded this step.

“You can assume, even if we lose customs tariffs, we will find another way,” said Peter Navarro Trade Adviser.

Wednesday a surprise judgment By the American International Trade Court, it threatened to stop or delay the “Tahrir Day” tariff in Trump on most of the trading partners in the United States, as well as importing fees on goods from Canada, Mexico and China related to accusing him that the three countries facilitate the flow of fentanel to the United States.

The International Trade Court said that the definitions issued under the IEEPA Economic Forces Law (IEPA), which is usually used to address national emergency cases instead of addressing the national debt, is more than that.

Experts said that IEPA, which was issued in 1977, is narrow in its scope and targeted specific countries, “terrorist organizations” identified by the United States, or gang activity linked to specific cases. The United States used, for example, the law to seize the property belonging to the Iranian government during the hostage crisis in 1979 and the property of drug traffickers in Colombia in 1995.

“The Law of the Economic Forces of the International Emergency for the year 1977 does not say anything at all about the customs tariff,” Bruce Fine, a former US assistant public prosecutor during the Ronald Reagan era.

Fein added that there is a law, the 1962 commercial expansion law, which allows definitions in the event of national emergency. However, he said that it requires a study conducted by the Minister of Commerce and can only be imposed on the basis of each product separately.

“Product Product”

Despite the postponement of the Court of Appeal, Wednesday’s decision was considered a blow to the administration’s economic schedule that has so far led to a decrease in consumer confidence and the United States has lost the highest credit rating.

Experts believe that, in the end, Definitions will not last.

Publishing on X, previously known as Twitter, on Thursday, lawyer Peter Harrill, a Carnegie Endowment colleague for international peace, was written that if the Trade Court decision “has been supported, the importers must eventually be able to recover the paid amount (IEPA) to date.

“The ability to determine the level of definitions that lie with Congress. IEPA does not mention even raising definitions. It has been actually passed to narrow the president’s authority. Now, the president is now using it to rewrite the customs tariff schedule of the whole world.”

The American Trade Court did not outperform the definitions set by other laws, such as the Trade Expansion Law – the law used to justify the definitions of steel, aluminum and cars.

There are additional goals for similar narrow tariffs, such as Medicines from China. In April, the White House announced that the US Department of Commerce launched an investigation to know whether the American dependence on China on the active ingredients in the main drugs represents a threat to national security, and thus calls for definitions.

“This is not a matter of whether the president can impose a tariff,” said Vin, the former assistant public prosecutor. “Under the law of 1962, after a study, he can not show that it is not arbitrary and volatile and it is a product for each product, and not an approach to every country.”

“If he does not like it, he can ask Congress to adjust the statute.”