Background
The de minimis exemption currently allows imports valued at $800 or less to enter the U.S. duty-free. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has proposed significant modifications to this rule, but not its complete elimination.
Resolution Criteria
This market will resolve YES if the U.S. government completely eliminates the de minimis exemption for all imports by January 1, 2026. The market will resolve NO if:
The de minimis exemption continues to exist
Only partial modifications or restrictions are implemented
No changes are made to the current system
Considerations
Current proposals focus on restricting rather than eliminating the exemption
The CBP's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking suggests excluding certain shipments subject to Section 201, 232, or 301 tariffs from the exemption
Legislative proposals like the "End China's De Minimis Abuse Act" aim to modify rather than eliminate the system
Complete elimination would represent a major shift in U.S. trade policy and would likely face significant opposition from e-commerce companies and consumers
Update 2025-02-03 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Clarification Update:
The market now applies specifically to China.
If there is any dispute regarding this focus, the resolution may be marked as N/A.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ2,124 | |
| 2 | Ṁ103 | |
| 3 | Ṁ88 | |
| 4 | Ṁ85 | |
| 5 | Ṁ83 |
@WilliamGunn I think she still uses the site @tftftftftftftftftftftftf can you resolve this or read the comment section?
@Balasar I am actually not sure whether this qualifies as "complete elimination", but the text here says that the de minimis exception was "erased".
@Balasar https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/imposing-duties-to-address-the-synthetic-opioid-supply-chain-in-the-peoples-republic-of-china/ The actual executive order: (g) For avoidance of doubt, duty-free de minimis treatment under 19 U.S.C. 1321 shall not be available for the articles described in subsection (a) of this section.
whereas Section (a) states that it applies to:
All articles that are products of the PRC, as defined by the Federal Register notice described in section 2(d) of this order (the Federal Register notice), shall be, consistent with law, subject to an additional 10 percent ad valorem rate of duty. Such rate of duty shall apply with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern time on February 4, 2025, except that goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, after such time that were loaded onto a vessel at the port of loading or in transit on the final mode of transport prior to entry into the United States before 12:01 a.m. eastern time on February 1, 2025, shall not be subject to such additional duty, only if the importer certifies to U.S. Customs and Border Protection within the Department of Homeland Security as specified in the Federal Register notice.
which sounds an awful lot like "complete elimination" with respect to China.
@tftftftftftftftftftftftf I bet on this when it did not say "for China", so I dispute the acceptability of changing the market definition
@JamesBaker3 The whole debate around these tariffs has been about China and the rumored and then enacted tariffs explicitly mentioned China. I find it hard to believe anyone was confused about this and if you want to argue you actually were and aren't just trying to NA your substantial losses, you might want to substantiate your claim a bit better.
@JamesBaker3 Not to mention like two days went by between that clarification and any meaningful change in the price - in fact, the market resolved when it was at 63%. Even if you aren't just trying to NA your bet, you had plenty of time to revise your bet with minimal losses.
@Balasar there was no notice to @traders - I was unaware of the change.
And yes the way that this market very broadly and explicitly specified the "completely eliminates the de minimis exemption for all imports" and emphasized that no partial change would qualify, that led me to believe that it meant for all countries. I bet NO on this market while betting YES on another market that actually specified China.
@JamesBaker3 Your comment on another exceedingly similar market by Mr. @WilliamGunn suggests you were perfectly aware of this ambiguity multiple days ago.
@Balasar I thought that market was ambiguous/underspecified and this market was clear! Just in the other direction! Hah.