設為首頁  加入最愛網
會員中心 贊助提供 徵求志工 線上電台 優惠精品 合作夥伴 關於我們 連絡我們
 
         
  首頁 > 影音網>貝森特:財政部有足夠現金支付 Bessent on Tariffs
貝森特:財政部有足夠現金支付 Bessent on Tariffs

[轉載自:Youtube]

[謝鎮寬]於2026-02-26 15:02:02上傳[]

 




CH 1






美關稅裁決恐釀1700億美元退款訴訟 
貝森特:財政部有足夠現金支付

美國最高法院推翻川普依據《國際緊急經濟權力法》(IEEPA)加徵關稅的行動後,幾千家企業和進口商準備展開可能長達數年的訴訟,試圖追回已支付的高達1700億美元關稅。法院裁決雖然宣告川普行動違法,但對退款程序未作說明,讓退款權利及流程懸而未決,案件將回到下級法院審理。財長貝森特表示,財政部有足夠資金支付關稅退款。

彭博新聞報導,美國最高法院20日以6比3裁決,認定總統川普(Donald Trump)無權依據《國際緊急經濟權力法》(IEEPA),對幾乎所有的貿易夥伴大規模加徵關稅,推翻他多數的全面性關稅措施,對他的核心經濟政策造成重大打擊。

不過,最高法院在裁決川普無權加徵關稅時,對退款問題保持沉默。全美幾千家企業和進口商準備展開可能持續多年的訴訟,試圖追回已支付給美國政府的高達1700億美元關稅。

川普在判決後的記者會上表示:「他們花了好幾個月寫意見書,卻連這件事都沒討論。我們接下來可能要在法院纏鬥5年。」川普表示,他計畫立即依據另1條法律規定實施新的10%全球性關稅,但這並不會阻止尋求退款的企業掀起訴訟浪潮。

這次行政敗訴將在全球經濟產生廣泛影響,任何退款程序的規模及範圍都將前所未有。過去幾個月,無論大企業、小企業、上市公司或私人公司,都在積極準備,以便在最高法院推翻川普行動後,最大限度地追回已支付的關稅。

像好事多(Costco)、鋁業巨頭「Alcoa」等零售和工業公司,還有幾百家小型企業,都已提出訴訟。大部分公司總部設在美國,也包括海外企業的美國子公司。

進口商是否有退款權將由下級法院審理

最高法院裁決留下的重大未解問題之一,是美國進口商是否有權追回過去1年依據IEEPA徵收的款項,還有退款程序如何進行。這次裁決以6比3反對川普政府,卡瓦諾(Brett Kavanaugh)大法官發表不同意見。

卡瓦諾寫說:「法院今天沒有說明政府是否應該、以及如何歸還從進口商收取的數十億美元,但這個程序很可能會是1場『混亂』,正如去年11月庭訊時所提及。」

截至目前,美國海關與邊境保護局已依川普使用IEEPA加徵的關稅徵收約1700億美元。法院裁定使用IEEPA加徵關稅不合法,但並未說明進口商是否有退款權,將由下級法院裁定。案件將回到美國國際貿易法院進行下1輪法律程序。

據彭博新聞分析,在等待最高法院裁決期間,已有超過1500家公司向貿易法院提出關稅訴訟,以爭取退款排隊權。過去幾個月,貿易法院已要求司法部至少提供如何處理退款問題的方向,以防在最高法院敗訴。

零售和服裝公司尤其焦慮,因為關稅增加了從中國、越南等亞洲國家採購商品的成本。例如,Lululemon去年12月表示,由於關稅影響,毛利率將下降。

美國財政部有足夠資金支付關稅退款

美國財政部長貝森特(Scott Bessent)表示,美國財政部手上約有近7740億美元的現金,如果法院下令退還IEEPA關稅,財政部有足夠資金支付,但過程可能需要好幾個星期或好幾個月,「甚至可能超過1年」。

貝森特也暗示,退款對企業來說可能變成「額外好處」,因為部分公司將關稅成本轉嫁給客戶。他舉例說:「好事多正在起訴美國政府,他們會把錢退給消費者嗎?」

嬰幼兒產品公司「Lalo」的總裁暨共同創辦人維德(Michael Wieder)表示,公司會採取一切必要步驟,追回最高法院裁決涵蓋的200多萬美元關稅。他說:「即便我們準備充足,也不指望退款會立刻發放,但我們希望排在最前線。」維德補充說,公司已與供應商合作抵消成本,只將「最小部分」的關稅轉嫁給客戶,對於如果收到退款會如何處理,尚未決定。「到時候再說吧。」

Bessent says tariff refund would be ‘ultimate corporate welfare’

(Bloomberg) — Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said any refunds from tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court would amount to “ultimate corporate welfare,” suggesting he sees no benefit flowing to American consumers.

“If there is a payout, it’s just going to be the ultimate corporate welfare,” Bessent said on Fox News Friday hours after the high court’s ruling — which left unanswered the question of what happens with money already collected.

Bessent said litigation over refunds could turn into a months- or years-long process, and “could be a mess.” Earlier Friday, when asked about potential refunds at an Economic Club of Dallas event, the Treasury chief said he had “a feeling the American people won’t see it.”

Companies could be the ones to benefit, he indicated on Fox News. Bessent cited a scenario where a Chinese supplier cut its price for an American importer, with the importer then paying the tariff but keeping the product’s final price tag unchanged. Giving the importer a refund would then be a net new benefit for that firm.

Bessent said the amount of revenue affected by the Supreme Court’s decision would be closer to $130 billion than estimates of up to $175 billion. The court ruled Friday that President Donald Trump could not impose tariffs using a law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Trump said he would re-impose most of the tariffs using other authorities. Bessent in a speech earlier Friday said that revenue collected from tariffs will be “virtually unchanged” in 2026 despite the ruling, thanks to the administration’s backup plan.

The other mechanisms include authorities granted by Congress known as Section 122, 232 and 301 authorities. Bessent said on Fox News that those methods are “less direct and slightly more convoluted.”

“Treasury’s estimates show that the use of Section 122 authority, combined with potentially enhanced Section 232 and Section 301 tariffs will result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026,” he said in prepared remarks to the Economic Club of Dallas.
The Treasury chief also called on US trading partners that have already reached agreements with the Trump administration based on the IEEPA tariffs to abide by them.

“I think that everyone is going to honor their deal,” he said on Fox News. He also said the Supreme Court had reaffirmed that the president has the right to “a complete embargo,” so that poses a “draconian alternative” for other nations.

Advertisements