Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Congress passed a law back -- 2008 placing a tariff on imported goods from China some companies question whether that was constitutional.
GPX -- -- family owned tire company.
Took -- lot of court and won.
But talk about a double edged sword how -- ended the -- law force that company into bankruptcy a year later.
Joining us to discuss all of this is the former.
PX Brian -- and this -- a family business almost 100 years old.
Explain to me if you can quickly how you can win the battle but lose the -- essentially put out of business.
Well Adam when we were assessed.
Duties back give them.
Back in 2008.
In 2009 we sued in federal district court.
And and we initially filed for preliminary injunction saying look if if you impose these 44% duties the company is not going to be able to stay in business.
But the court imposes duties anyways we.
The bank called our loan the next day we were forced to file for bankruptcy protection.
We then one in federal district court in.
August of 2010.
The Department of Commerce who imposed the duties.
Appeal the decision it went to the federal appeals court.
And we won again and the federal appeals court in December of 2011 just last year.
But then congress changed the law right congress changed the law that.
Making the tariff retroactive and -- -- meaning you do get a refund of the money the court said you were owed.
Exactly the court the court said.
The court said that they haven't.
The Department of -- -- -- refund.
The -- of commerce appealed to the Supreme Court which did not hear the case.
And then they went through congress and they did something which was very interesting it was by unanimous consent.
Another words vote without a public debate without going to the floor without any time for comment.
And they passed a retroactive bill to say well okay if the courts are going to say that you didn't violate the laws as stood back in 2006.
Will -- We change the law now let let me stop you there retroactive.
It put you out of business because you're hoping to get that money back but.
Making something retroactive I'm not a lawyer but I believe our laws based on Expos facto after the fact this is now before the fact.
Well this is very dangerous is it not could this not be applied to all kinds of industry all kinds of regulation going forward.
Well that the reason we're continuing to.
Continue this suit is simply because.
This is very dangerous this is a slippery slope.
And it's like the -- coming back in and saying well we know that you didn't violate the EPA laws back in 2000 sex.
But you know I guess what we're changing that -- and now you have violated the EPA laws.
So this could be done for the Department of Justice for the FTC for EPA for any of these administrative agencies.
So it is very very dangerous.
So much so that even though you're out of business you're still fighting this case and other companies I know that that tires that used to sell some of the made in China.
Chinese firms are actually helping fund this fight -- and it it is somewhat complicated but at the end of the day this.
This new policy it would -- of making something retroactive not only seems un American.
But does seem dangerous.
Well you know I I what we're we're very concerned because -- a lot of people are talking with regard to the tax code businesses need predictability.
And if we -- will rely on the laws that are on the books of the -- at the current time what can we rely rely on.
At what company is going to feel like they're going to sue.
Federal agency if they know that even if they winning court.
That congress can simply go and change the law retroactively.
So I think it's gonna have a very chilling effect.
On business in America.
-- first that presage of being with us I am sorry that your businesses out of business that would also costs about 500 people their jobs good fight to keep the fight going and and a lot of people rooting for -- --
Filter by section