The trade war remains unanswered. Less than 24 hours after being blocked at first instance, the customs duties of Donald Trump were temporarily kept on Thursday by an American court of appeal, the time for her to rule on the merits.
Wednesday, the United States International Commercial Court (ITC) estimated that Trump had exceeded his powers By imposing non -targeted surcharge, while it is a prerogative of the congress.
His decision therefore blocked so much the customs duties imposed in Canada, Mexico and China, accused not to fight enough against fentanyl traffickingthat the “reciprocal” customs duties imposed in early April – whose application beyond a 10 % floor was postponed in early July.
Beijing pressure
A decision that the White House had castigated but which had been welcomed by the main trade partners of the United States, China even calling to “completely cancel” these surcharges. The government had filed a request in the process, announcing that it is ready to turn to the Supreme Court to obtain this temporary suspension on Friday.
But a Court of Appeal accessed the government’s request adding consolidating the two files on the same subject, initiated on the one hand by small businesses and on the other by a coalition of American states, to do only one. The decision taken by the ITC had aroused the ire of the White House, which had considered this judgment on Thursday as “manifestly erroneous” and said it was convinced “that this decision will be invalidated on appeal”.
For its part, China has pressed the United States to “completely cancel unilateral customs duties”, after ITC’s decision, by the voice of a spokesperson for the Ministry of Commerce. “The government welcomes the decision,” said Prime Minister Mark Carney, “it confirms the Canadian position, which was to consider these customs duties as illegal and unjustified, before the Canadian Parliament.”
“Unconstitutional”
But “we believe that our commercial relationship with the United States is still deeply threatened” by customs duties that are always applied to steel and aluminum or the automotive sector, added Mr. Carney, who hopes to “strengthen () collaboration with reliable business partners and allies around the world”.
In detail, the judges consider that the president cannot invoke the 1977 economic emergency law (ieepa) to institute by decree “an unlimited surcharge on products from almost all countries”, according to judgment.
For them, the decrees adopted “go beyond the powers granted to the president in the context of the ieepa law to regulate imports”, this text only allowing him to “take the necessary economic sanctions in the event of an emergency to fight a threat extraordinary and unusual ». Any interpretation which delegates to it “an unlimited authority on customs duties is unconstitutional”, insisted the judges.
Two complaints
In a written opinion accompanying the decision, one of the judges, who is not appointed, considered that this “would constitute a renunciation of legislative power for the benefit of another branch of the government”, which is contrary to the American Constitution.
The court was pronounced following two complaints, filed one by an alliance of twelve American states including Arizona, Oregon, New York and Minnesota, the other by a group of US companies, who reproached Donald Trump for assisting powers belonging to the Congress.
On April 2, President Trump announced so -called “reciprocal” customs duties, supposed to concern all countries around the world, before falling back to the fall in the financial markets, granting a 90 -day break – while maintaining a 10 % floor surcharge – in order to open the door to commercial negotiations.
After an showdown and an escalation of colossal surcharge that they won mutually, Beijing and Washington finally got along in mid-May On a 10 % return to American products and 30 % on Chinese products. But Thursday, after the decision of the international commercial court, the spokesman for the Chinese Ministry of Commerce denounced American protectionism “who does not benefit anyone”.
