Sri Lanka and Scotland out of Women’s Under 19 T20 semi-finals

Published

1 year ago

2025/01/26

Priyan

The wet weather found its way to Malaysia’s capital, and the start to Sri Lanka’s Super Six showdown with Scotland continued to be pushed back, until time ran out.

The two sides split the points, with neither now able to qualify for the semi-finals.

Scotland will play their last game of the tournament on Tuesday against India, while Sri Lanka will end their campaign with the final match of the Super 6 phase against Australia on Wednesday.

All News Advertisement

Ranaweera’s four-for leads Sri Lanka to tense win over West Indies

Published

2 hours ago

2026/02/21

Priyan

Inoka Ranaweera returned figures of 4 for 44 [Cricinfo]

Sri Lanka took a 1-0 lead in the ODI series with a tense ten-run win over West Indies, thanks largely to a match-defining performance from Inoka Ranaweera.

After being asked to bat, Sri Lanka posted 240 for 6, built on half-centuries from Hasini Perera (61 off 86) and Harshitha Samarawickrema (66 off 105). Captain Chamari Athapaththu made 27, while useful middle-order contributions from Nilakshika Silva and Kavisha Dilhari kept the innings moving at a controlled rate. A late cameo from Dewmi Vihanga, who struck 14 off six balls, ensured Sri Lanka pushed towards a competitive total in St George’s in Grenada.

But it was Ranaweera who tilted the contest. The experienced left-arm spinner returned figures of 4 for 44 from her ten overs. She removed the No. 3 Shemaine Campbelle cheaply, dismissed Chinelle Henry soon after, and then returned to break the dangerous stand of 89 between Stefanie Taylor and Jannillea Glasgow in the 40th over, just as West Indies were threatening to surge ahead. Ranaweera also accounted for Shawnisha Hector at the death.

Taylor’s 66 off 83 balls and Glasgow’s 50 off 67 had revived West Indies from early setbacks, and with Aaliyah Alleyne in the middle, the chase remained alive deep into the game. West Indies needed 18 from the last two overs, and 12 from the last six balls. However, Sri Lanka’s spinners held firm, with Dilhari finishing with three wickets, including two in the final over, to complement Ranaweera’s starring role.

West Indies were eventually bowled out for 230 in 49.4 overs. Sri Lanka have now won four of their last five ODIs against West Indies since 2017.

Brief scores:
Sri Lanka Women 240 for 6 in 50 overs (Harshitha Samarawickrama 66, Hasini Perera 61; Hayley Matthews 2-46, Karishma Ramharak 2-57) beat West Indies Women 230 in 49.4 overs (Stefanie Taylor 66, Jannillea Glasgow 50; Inoka Ranaweera 4-44, Kavish Dilhari 3-49) by ten runs

[Cricinfo]

Latest News

Trump brings in new 10% tariff as Supreme Court rejects his global import taxes

Published

7 hours ago

2026/02/21

Priyan

US President Donald Trump has imposed a new 10% global tariff to replace ones struck down by the Supreme Court, calling the ruling “terrible” and lambasting the justices who rejected his trade policy as “fools”.

The president unveiled the plan shortly after the justices outlawed most of the global tariffs the White House announced last year.

In a 6-3 decision, the court held that the president had overstepped his powers.

The decision was a major victory for businesses and US states that had challenged the duties, opening the door to potentially billions of dollars in tariff refunds, while also injecting new uncertainty into the global trade landscape.

Speaking from the White House on Friday, Trump indicated that refunds would not come without a legal battle, saying he expected the matter to be tied up in court for years.

He also said he would turn to other laws to press ahead with his tariffs, which he has argued encourage investment and manufacturing in the US.

“We have alternatives – great alternatives and we’ll be a lot stronger for it,” he said.

The court battle was focused on import taxes that Trump unveiled last year on goods from nearly every country in the world.

The tariffs initially targeted Mexico, Canada and China, before expanding dramatically to dozens of trade partners on what the president billed as “Liberation Day” last April.

The White House had cited a 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president power to “regulate” trade in response to an emergency.

But the measures sparked outcry at home and abroad from firms facing an abrupt rise in taxes on shipments entering the US, and fuelled worries that the levies would lead to higher prices.

Arguing before the court last year, lawyers for the challenging states and small businesses said that the law used by the president to impose the levies made no mention of the word “tariffs”.

They said that Congress did not intend to hand off its power to tax or give the president an “open-ended power to junk” other existing trade deals and tariff rules.

In his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, sided with that view.

“When Congress has delegated its tariff powers, it has done so in explicit terms and subject to strict limits,” he wrote.

“Had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs, it would have done so expressly, as it consistently has in other tariff statutes.”

The decision to strike down the tariffs was joined by the court’s three liberal justices, as well as two justices nominated by Trump: Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch.

Three conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito, dissented.

At the White House, Trump said he was “absolutely ashamed” of the Republican appointees on the court who voted against his trade policy.

He said they were “just being fools and lap dogs” and were “very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution”.

Shares on Wall Street rose after the announcement, with the S&P 500 closing up about 0.7%, as businesses across the US cautiously welcomed the ruling.

“I feel… like a thousand-pound weight has been lifted off my chest,” said Beth Benike, the owner of Busy Baby products in Minnesota, which manufactures products in China.

Nik Holm, chief executive of Terry Precision Cycling, one of the small businesses involved in the case, called the ruling a “relief”.

“Though it will be many months before our supply chain is back up and running as normal, we look forward to the government’s refund of these improperly-collected duties,” he said.

The anticipated refunds and relief from tariff costs may prove elusive, however.

On Friday, Trump imposed the new 10% tariff under a never-used law known as Section 122, which gives the power to put in place tariffs up to 15% for 150 days, at which point Congress must step in.

Analysts expect the White House to consider other tools, such as Section 232 and Section 301, which allow import taxes to address national security risks and unfair trade practices.

Trump has previously used those tools for tariffs, including some announced last year on sectors such as steel, aluminium and cars. Those were untouched by the court ruling.

A White House official said countries that struck trade deals with the US, including the UK, India and the EU, will now face the global 10% tariff under Section 122 rather than the tariff rate they had previously negotiated.

The Trump administration expects those countries to keep abiding by the concessions they had agreed to under the trade deals, the official added.

“Things have only gotten more complicated and more messy today,” said Geoffrey Gertz, senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security in Washington.

Reaction by major trade partners was relatively muted.

“We take note of the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court and are analysing it carefully,” European Commission spokesman Olof Gill wrote on social media.

The US has already collected at least $130bn in tariffs using the IEEPA law, according to the most recent government data.

In recent weeks, hundreds of firms, including retailer Costco, aluminium giant Alcoa and food importers like tuna fish brand Bumble Bee, have filed lawsuits contesting the tariffs, in a bid to get in line for a refund.

But the decision by the majority does not directly mention refunds, likely handing back the question of how that process might work to the Court of International Trade.

In his dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned the situation would be a “mess”.

Diane Swonk, chief economist at KPMG US, warned that the cost of litigation could make recouping funds difficult for smaller firms.

“Unfortunately, I’d say curb your enthusiasm, although I understand the desire for relief,” she said.

Steve Becker, head of the law firm Pillsbury, said the “best thing” for businesses would be if the government created a procedure that did not require filing a lawsuit.

[BBC]

“I think companies can be fairly confident that they’ll get their money back eventually,” he added. “How long it will take really is up to the government.”

Latest News

Tariffs ruling is major blow to Trump’s second-term agenda

Published

13 hours ago

2026/02/20

Priyan

[pic BBC]

Donald Trump had been warning for months that a Supreme Court decision like this would be catastrophic.

If the court curtailed his ability to impose these tariffs, he had said, it would be an “economic and national security disaster”.

A six-justice majority of the Supreme Court, in ruling against the president on Friday, didn’t care much about his concerns.

Congress, not the president, has the power to impose tariffs, the justices ruled. And nothing in the law that the president based his tariffs on, the Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, delegated such sweeping powers to Trump.

The court’s decision represents a rare check on this president’s broad use of executive authority.

A majority of the justices over the past year have shown a willingness to allow Trump to press ahead with his agenda, particularly on immigration and reshaping the federal government, even as legal challenges work their way through the court system.

This case, which was fast-tracked through the court system as an emergency, slams the door on one such expansive use of presidential authority.

With several other major cases involving controversial uses of executive power, such as efforts to end birthright citizenship and to dismiss a Federal Reserve governor based on alleged improprieties, this may not be Trump’s only setback in the coming months.

At the very least, this decision weakens Trump’s hand when trying to force other nations to make concessions to the US and tarnishes his veneer of invincibility.

Weakness begets weakness, and America’s trading partners may be emboldened to take a tougher line with the US now that the president’s tariff powers have been curtailed.

It also opens up the possibility that the Trump administration may have to give back much of the tariff revenue it collected over the past year.

While the justices left this thorny issue to be decided by a lower court, Brett Kavanaugh in his dissent warned that the process is likely to be a “mess”.

The Trump administration had plenty of time to prepare for Friday’s decision.

Supreme Court precedent, and the attitude of many of the justices when the case was argued in court last November, indicated that an adverse outcome for the president was quite possible.

Jamieson Greer, Trump’s top trade adviser, said last month that the White House has “a lot of different options” on how to proceed if the tariffs were struck down.

“The reality,” he said, “is the president is going to have tariffs as part of his trade policy going forward.”

The other options that could be at Trump’s disposal are more limited, however.

They require government agencies to produce detailed reports to justify imposing tariffs, and they have limits on their scope and duration.

Gone are the days when the president could threaten, or enact, triple-digit tariffs with the wave of a pen or the click of a Truth Social post.