当地时间2月27日，美国司法部请求联邦巡回上诉法院暂缓下达关税退款执行命令。此前，一些小企业 在最高法院上周作出不利于特朗普政府的裁决后，要求法院尽快命令政府退还已征收的关税。 文件显示，特朗普政府并未否认可能需要支付退款及利息，但请求法院"暂缓90天下达执行令"，以便行 政与立法部门有时间评估后续选项。司法部称，问题复杂性需要"审慎程序，而非仓促推进"。（央视记 者 许弢） ...

瑞士的出口引擎似乎正在重新站稳脚跟，而制药业似乎在承担大部分重任。据瑞士国家经济事务秘书处 称，第四季度药品和化学品制造商实现了1.9%的增长，这一贡献帮助推动经体育赛事调整后的国内生 产总值增长了0.2%。该数字与初值持平，而前一季度的经济收缩幅度从0.5%修正为0.4%，表明经济下 滑的程度略低于此前预期。 瑞士的出口引擎似乎正在重新站稳脚跟，而制药业似乎在承担大部分重任。据瑞士国家经济事务秘书处 称，第四季度药品和化学品制造商实现了1.9%的增长，这一贡献帮助推动经体育赛事调整后的国内生 产总值增长了0.2%。该数字与初值持平，而前一季度的经济收缩幅度从0.5%修正为0.4%，表明经济下 滑的程度略低于此前预期。 此次复苏发生在瑞士与美国达成贸易协议之后，这一进展可能有助于稳定这个高度依赖跨境需求的经济 体。另一层因素是，近期一项最高法院裁决推翻了唐纳德·特朗普关税的法律基础，这增加了瑞士公司 可能获得已支付税款退款的可能性。对于评估出口驱动型行业盈利敏感性的投资者而言，这笔潜在的退 款可能很重要，尽管最终结果将取决于法律程序的进展。 同样需要注意的是，总体增长数据排除了与重大体育赛事相关的收入，鉴于全 ...

美国总统特朗普影响深远的全球关税在其生效的10个月里，至少征收了1300亿美元税款。对企业来说， 获得退款可能需要更长的时间。 自美国最高法院上周五推翻特朗普的许多关税以来，已有数十家公司涌入法院，试图追回已缴税款，由 此加入了其他数百家因预期法院会做出该裁决而提前提起诉讼的公司行列。 据分析，迄今为止，至少有1800家公司已提起诉讼要求退款，而且每天都有更多公司加入。大多数公司 ——包括开市客、固特异公司和Barnes & Noble等知名企业——都在最高法院做出该裁决之前就已提起 诉讼。 自法院做出裁决以来的几天里，更多公司加入了他们的行列，其中包括联邦快递，律师们预测未来将出 现大量诉讼。 "我们谈论的是'石棉级'规模的诉讼，"为进口商提起诉讼的联邦诉讼律师马修·塞利格曼（Matthew Seligman）说。他指的是几十年来就石棉相关的伤害索赔提起的数千起诉讼。但他说，这些关税案 件"完全是在同一时间发生的"。 到目前为止，大量的法律文件基本上如出一辙，都陈述了基本事实以及每家公司应获退款的理由。原告 公司通常没有透露他们认为自己应获退款的具体金额。 美国海关边境保护局官员在一份法庭文件中表示，截至2 ...

当地时间2月24日，央视记者获悉，在美国最高法院裁定特朗普政府大规模关税措施违法后，纽约州州 长凯茜·霍楚尔呼吁联邦政府退还135亿美元关税收入。 霍楚尔表示，这些关税在过去一年使纽约州普通家庭平均增加约1751美元支出，并对小企业造成冲击， 称其为"对消费者和企业的变相税收"，要求全额退款。 纽约州州长凯茜·霍楚尔（资料图） 此前，加州州长和伊利诺伊州州长也提出类似要求。白宫则回应称，特朗普利用关税"兑现了承诺"，批 评民主党州长的呼吁是"毫无意义的政治操作"。 （央视新闻） ...

Summary of Key Points from the Conference Call Industry and Company Involved - The discussion primarily revolves around the **US Treasury market** and the implications of the **US Supreme Court's ruling** on the **International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)** tariffs. Core Insights and Arguments - The **US Supreme Court** invalidated the administration's use of IEEPA for tariffs but did not mandate tariff refunds, leading to a mixed reaction in the Treasury market as investors initially sold Treasuries but later partially retraced their positions [6][9][25]. - The expectation is that the administration will utilize other authorities to reimpose tariffs, which should keep revenue and deficit expectations stable [6][13][18]. - Current **US bank holdings of Treasuries** have reached a record high, indicating strong demand for government securities [6][33]. - The **12-month deficit-to-GDP ratio** is currently at **5.3%**, with projections suggesting it could rise to **6.0%** by the end of 2026, which is still lower than the deficits seen in 2024 and 2025 [18][19]. - If refunds are required, the Treasury is expected to manage this through short-dated T-bills, minimizing the impact on coupon issuance [19][20][27]. Important but Overlooked Content - The **Congressional Budget Office (CBO)** has released projections that include the impact of tariffs and immigration policies, which may influence future fiscal strategies [13]. - The potential for tariff refunds is still uncertain, with Justice Kavanaugh noting that the process could be complicated and messy [19]. - The **monthly financing needs** for potential refunds have been calculated under various scenarios, indicating that the Treasury may not need to significantly alter its issuance strategy [22][24]. - The **Federal Reserve's** upcoming regulatory changes, including stress testing and Basel III implementation, are expected to provide clarity and support for banks' capital standards, which could further influence Treasury security holdings [29][31][33]. Conclusion - The overall sentiment suggests that while the Supreme Court ruling has created some initial volatility in the Treasury market, the long-term outlook remains stable due to expected government actions and strong bank demand for Treasuries. Investors are advised to maintain a long position in 2-year UST swap spreads as a strategic move in the current environment [6][33][39].

Group 1 - The U.S. government is considering imposing new tariffs on approximately six industries, citing "national security" as the reason, which may include large batteries, cast iron and iron fittings, plastic pipes, industrial chemicals, and grid and telecommunications equipment [1] - The proposed tariffs will be separate from the recently announced global 15% tariff measures [1] - Over 1,000 companies have joined legal actions against the government, seeking refunds for previously paid tariffs, including major firms like Costco and Reebok [1] Group 2 - U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bencet emphasized that the Supreme Court's ruling did not address the refund process for previously collected tariffs, leaving it to lower courts to decide [6][7] - The potential refund amount is estimated to be around $134 billion, with some models suggesting it could exceed $175 billion when considering future adjustments [10] - The refund process is expected to involve a combination of court actions, customs, and administrative departments, with the White House already signing an executive order to terminate additional tariffs under the IEEPA [11][12] Group 3 - The legal battle over the IEEPA tariffs represents a significant financial tug-of-war between companies and the Treasury, with the refund issue becoming a politically sensitive topic for the current U.S. administration [15]

Core Viewpoint - FedEx has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government seeking a full refund for tariffs imposed by President Trump, which the Supreme Court recently ruled as illegal [1]. Group 1: Company Actions - FedEx's lawsuit is the first major action taken by an American company following the Supreme Court's decision regarding the illegality of the tariffs [1]. - The company is seeking to recover the tariffs it has paid under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act [2]. Group 2: Legal Context - Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, other companies had also filed lawsuits for refunds related to the same tariffs [2]. - The Supreme Court's ruling declared the tariffs imposed by Trump as illegal, setting a precedent for potential refunds [2].

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration lacked the authority to impose extensive tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), but did not clarify the process for refunding the collected tariffs, leaving this issue to lower courts and administrative agencies [2][5][10]. Group 1: Legal and Political Implications - The Supreme Court's decision clarified that the IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose such tariffs, but it did not specify how refunds should be handled, creating a significant political and legal ambiguity [5][10]. - Treasury Secretary Scott Bencet's comments suggest a strategy of deflecting responsibility, indicating that the refund process is not a priority for the administration and that the government may resist refunding [4][10]. - The lack of a clear refund process raises critical questions about who will receive refunds, how much will be refunded (including interest), and the source of the refund funds, which are politically sensitive issues [4][10]. Group 2: Financial Impact and Refund Estimates - Estimates for the total amount to be refunded range from approximately $134 billion to potentially over $175 billion, depending on various factors and modeling approaches [7][8]. - The refund process is expected to involve multiple entities, including the courts, customs, and administrative departments, with a likelihood of a lengthy timeline for actual refunds to be issued [8][10]. Group 3: Administrative Actions and Future Strategies - The White House has issued an executive order to terminate additional tariffs imposed under the IEEPA, but this does not affect other existing tariffs, indicating a continued reliance on tariff strategies [11][12]. - The administration's focus appears to be on maintaining tariff leverage rather than expediting refunds, suggesting a strategic approach to manage cash flow while navigating legal challenges [12].

近日，英国广播公司（BBC）刊文关注美国白宫关税政策被美国最高法院裁定"不合法"之后留下的"退款难 题"。 贝森特在达拉斯的一次活动上讲话时指出，由于最高法院没有就退款问题给出任何指示，通过《国际紧急 经济权力法》征收关税所获得的收入存在争议。预计这一问题将由美国国际贸易法院进行裁决。 文章指出，任何退款流程都需要提交详细的申请材料，且每一家进口企业必须自主提起诉讼，才能有机会 获得退款，法律程序复杂且漫长。 不过，专家表示，最有可能出现的情况是，任何退款都将流向大公司，因为小企业缺乏完成申请退款众多 步骤所需的资源。 自由派智库Groundwork Collective的政策与宣传主管亚历克斯•哈奎兹称，在裁决出台前，已有超过1000家 企业申请了关税退款，而且这个数字很可能会继续增长。 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）的文章也认为，这场争取退还1300多亿美元的关税斗争才刚刚开始。 美国有线电视新闻网文章截图 文章称，尽管美国最高法院的裁决判定政府依据《国际紧急经济权力法》征收的关税不合法，但对于白宫 依据"违法条款"已征收的大约1300亿美元关税，最高法院并未就退款问题给出明确指引。预计退款问题将 会演变成 ...

最高法院否决IEEPA关税的法律基础后，市场关注的焦点从"关税还在不在"转向"退不退款、怎么换法条、贸易框架协 议还算不算数"。 据央视新闻报道，美国最高法院当地时间2月20日裁定，特朗普政府援引《国际紧急经济权力法案》（IEEPA）对美国 进口商品加征关税"违法"。在随后记者会上，特朗普回应称将于当日签署行政令，依据《1974年贸易法》第122条实 施"10%全球统一关税"，并宣布开启多项所谓的301调查。 并非所有关税都受影响 据追风交易台消息，汇丰最新研报援引判决要点称，最高法院认定IEEPA并不授权总统以"紧急状态"为由对进口普遍征 税。瑞银在解读中补充，首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨代表多数意见写道："IEEPA不授权总统征收关税。" 这意味着，2025年特朗普政府用IEEPA搭建的关税体系——先对加拿大、墨西哥加税，随后在2025年4月2日将"互惠/对 等关税"扩展至几乎所有贸易伙伴——核心法律支柱被抽走。 但并非所有关税都受影响。汇丰强调，本次裁决不影响已存在的： 232条款（国家安全、行业性关税） 301条款 201条款（保障措施，如2018年太阳能） 关税重构而不是推翻 瑞银认为，大多数IEEPA关 ...