SEC. 112031. Modifications to de minimis entry privilege for commercial shipments.
(a) Civil penalty.
(1) ADDITIONAL PENALTY IMPOSED.Section 321 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1321) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
Any person who enters, introduces, facilitates, or attempts to introduce an article into the United States using the privilege of this section, the importation of which violates any other provision of United States law, shall be assessed, in addition to any other penalty permitted by law, a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for the first violation and up to $10,000 for each subsequent violation.
(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.”The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall take effect 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Repeal of commercial shipment exception.
(1) REPEAL. Section 321(a)(2)(B) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(B)) is amended by striking of this Act, or and all that follows through subdivision (2); and and inserting of this Act; and.
Plenty of time for the shorts and longs to be set up so the grift is not as obvious. Thankfully congress is filled to the brim of honor and integrity, and would not allow such a thing to happen by any of the three branches of government.
I appreciate you sharing these WSJ articles; I read them too. But I’d just add that the full impact of these tariffs hasn’t even started showing yet.
May’s 0.1% uptick is based on stock that was imported months ago, often at pre-tariff rates. As that clears, we’ll see the real pricing distortion.
And on the revenue side…sure, $22B is a headline number, but let’s be clear: that’s a tax on Americans, not China. It’s not free money. The long-term damage to GDP, market confidence, and supply chains already dwarfs it.
So yeah, it’s data, but let’s not confuse early noise with structural outcomes. The real costs come later.
I identified it as data because that is all it is.
As for noise, I consider all of the stock market data since the tariffs were announced to be of a magnitude and duration consistent with that being noise as well.
And most of the economic predictions to date, are also likely to be based on noise. Nonetheless, people are making business and personal finance decisions based on noise.
There are no predictions on the economy that I see as likely to be correct, and given the range of predictions. that is a bold position.
I suppose that’s fair to treat all data as data, but I think we both know context determines meaning.
The problem isn’t having data; it’s how early-stage data gets interpreted as confirmation before the full policy cycle plays out. Especially when it involves long supply chains, lagging inventories, and second-order effects.
If it’s all noise, then calling anything good or bad - including revenue gains or pricing flatness - is premature. That’s kind of the point I was making.
Personally, I’d rather adjust for likely structural friction than pretend none exists just because May didn’t spike.
It’s easy to ignore the second and third order effects of tariffs in supply chains. Let us not forget the port fees on Chinese vessels nobody is talking about.
Holy $#@! what the hell has happened now?!?! runs to Google
