Logistics Management recently caught up with John Lash, group VP of product strategy for connected supply chain platform services provider e2open, a WiseTech Global Group company, on various topics related to tariffs, trade policies, and their collective impact on both businesses and consumers. The Q&A follows below.
Logistics Management (LM): How do you view the current state of how trade policy is implemented, especially in light of the temporary stay of the White House’s tariffs temporary Section 122 10% tariffs, following an appeal made by the U.S. Department of Justice to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which reinstated the tariffs as the appeal is considered”
John Lash: Early last year, we quickly learned that “on-again, off-again” is the adjective that best describes the country’s new trade policies. The same goes for tariff lawsuits, except the order is flipped to “off-again, on-again.” The pattern is clear. Plaintiffs sue over the legality of tariffs; justices rule that tariffs exceed executive authority; a court of appeals issues a stay within days; and the case gets punted to higher courts. That’s what went down with IEEPA and is currently in play with Section 122 tariffs.
While we’re not sure whether Section 122 will reach all the way to the Supreme Court, we can be sure this will take a while to play out. Worse yet, tariffs remain in effect while the case works its way through the courts, so businesses and consumers continue to pay without relief.
LM: How long could this be the case for, do you think?
Lash: With IEEPA, it took more than eight months from the appeal to reach a final ruling. That’s a lot of unnecessary tax payments that companies could have used to grow their business. And it’s been slow to get back. Now, [a little more than four] months after the Supreme Court ruling, the federal trade court ordered the head of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to appear at a hearing to explain why so few refunds are issued.
LM: What have been this biggest pain points for consumers and businesses related to tariffs?
Lash: These delays and lack of transparency add to growing consumer and business frustration, especially amidst economic unease, inflationary pressure, and affordability concerns. Call it tariff fatigue, combined with a sense of injustice.
A sense of injustice on several levels. First, for being forced to pay unnecessary tariffs that squeezed our pocketbooks. Second, for how long it takes to get refunds once the tariffs were ruled illegal. Third, whether those truly entitled to receive refunds will actually get them. Will they be kept by businesses or passed on to consumers?
LM: How would you describe the federal government’s approach to tariff refunds?
Lash: From the government’s perspective, the answer to who they refund is simple: the importer of record. But we all know that’s not necessarily the party that bore the cost of the tariffs. Some businesses temporarily absorbed tariffs and took a hit to margins. Others opaquely passed through tariffs bundled into price hikes. A few transparently listed tariffs as a discrete line item. Most used some combination of the above.
In a perfect world, refunds would flow through to whoever paid the actual cost of tariffs. But in the real world, it’s a function of transparency and power dynamics between buyers and sellers, especially when there is an asymmetric power imbalance. When there’s clear transparency or the power dynamic favors consumers, refunds are more likely to be passed on. When the power dynamic favors businesses, refunds are more likely to be kept.
LM: In May a proposed class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Disrtrict Court for the Western District of Washington, with the plaintiffs representing consumers who allegedly paid higher prices for imported goods sold by Amazon because of the challenged tariffs. What are the key takeaways of this case?
Lash: The class-action lawsuit filed against Amazon is an interesting bellwether. While there are many aspects to this case, at the center is one fundamental question: who keeps the hundreds of millions of dollars in unlawful tariff costs collected by Amazon? Will it be the consumers who indirectly paid tariffs through higher prices? Will it be Amazon who keeps it all for a big windfall? Or will Amazon avoid filing for a refund altogether to curry favor with the administration? Time will tell. To date, Amazon has reportedly not sought refunds from the government.
The big-picture issue is that for every Amazon, there are thousands of smaller businesses that aren’t at risk of a class-action lawsuit but still face the same question. Do you lean into customers or favor yourself? For some CEOs, it’s a moral dilemma; for others, it’s an opportunity – and a good reminder that how we respond in times of adversity defines who we are and who we aspire to be.
