IEEPA Tariff Refunds: Frequently Asked Questions

1. As a result of the Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026 decision in Learning Resources v. United States (invalidating President Trump’s Executive Orders (EOs) imposing tariffs under the International Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA), will I be able to claim a refund of all IEEPA tariffs I’ve paid to date?

Yes. The IEEPA tariffs were ruled to have been illegally imposed, and President Trump has revoked the EOs at issue, as follows:

• EO 14193 (Northern Border / Illicit Drugs)
• EO 14194 (Southern Border Measures)
• EO 14195 (PRC Synthetic Opioid Supply Chain)
• EO 14245 (Venezuelan Oil Imports)
• EO 14257 (Reciprocal Trade Deficit Tariffs)
• EO 14323 (Brazil)
• EO 14329 (Russian Federation)

All IEEPA tariffs paid since February 4, 2025 (for the so-called “fentanyl” tariffs) and April 5, 2025 (the so-called “reciprocal” tariffs) through February 24, 2026 are eligible for refunds, in addition to the others above related to Venezuela, Brazil, and Russia.

2. Will I need to go to court to obtain my refunds?

The answer to this question remains unsettled. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has implemented an administrative refund process, i.e., the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) within the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), which allows eligible importers to submit refund declarations directly to CBP. CAPE Phase 1 opened on April 20, 2026.

CAPE was developed and implemented pursuant to an April 7, 2026 order of Judge Richard K. Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States and Euro-Notions Florida Inc. v. United States. The deadline for the government to appeal this order is June 7, 2026.

If an appeal is filed, several outcomes are possible:

• No stay granted – CAPE processing may continue while the appeal proceeds;
• Stay granted – refund processing through CAPE could be paused pending the outcome of the appeal; or
• Partial or full reversal – the scope of refund eligibility could be narrowed or otherwise modified.

Although Learning Resources, Inc. v. United States obviously ruled on the merits that the IEEPA tariffs were unlawful, the current dispute is focused on the procedure, scope, administration, and mechanics of refunds rather than the underlying legality of the tariffs.

Importers should also be aware that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has indicated opposition to extending refund relief beyond plaintiffs in the relevant litigation. While CAPE is currently available more broadly (including to non-plaintiff importers), it remains possible that some parties may ultimately need to initiate litigation to preserve or enforce their refund rights.

The CIT remains the exclusive forum for judicial challenges involving customs duties and tariff refunds.

3. What does CAPE Phase I cover and what actions should importers take now to prepare for refund claims?

First, only the Importer of Record (IOR) that originally paid the IEEPA tariffs is eligible to file claims via CAPE Phase 1. Other parties in the supply chain leading to the import and any re-sale in the U.S. (that may have covered part or all of the cost of the IEEPA tariffs) are not eligible to file claims. However, those other parties may negotiate with the IOR to secure reimbursement of their share of the tariff cost or have the IOR designate them via Customs Form 4811 as a party eligible to receive these duty refunds. See Question 6 below for more details.

Importer claimants should begin preparing refund calculations using the applicable tariff periods, i.e., entries that are unliquidated or entries liquidated within the preceding 80 days that remain within the 90-day voluntary reliquidation window under 19 U.S.C. § 1501.

As an initial step, importers that have not already done so should obtain access to the ACE portal, which is CBP’s “single window” system providing access to import and export data maintained by CBP and other participating government agencies.

Within ACE, importers should utilize the Entry Summary Detail Report (ES‑003), which can be exported into Excel for analysis. To identify IEEPA-related duties, the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) column should be filtered for the applicable Chapter 99 tariff provisions, i.e., 9903.01.xx and 9903.02.xx, with further refinement by country at the eight-digit level, as appropriate. A full list of all Chapter 99 IEEPA country/region-specific tariff codes is shown below.

Phase 1 of CAPE became operational on April 20, 2026. CBP has indicated that future CAPE phases are expected to expand eligibility to additional categories of entries, including certain entries that are currently outside the 80-day post-initial-liquidation window -- or otherwise not eligible under Phase I. However, the timing and scope of these future phases have not yet been announced.

Importers should assess whether their entries fall within current CAPE eligibility parameters or whether reliance on future CAPE phases or alternative legal remedies are warranted. In doing so, importers should be mindful that certain categories of entries may involve added complexity, heightened review, or delayed processing, including entries that:

• Are subject to reconciliation (flagged entries);
• Involve antidumping or countervailing duties (AD/CVD);
• Are subject to an open protest or court injunction;
• Are tied to an active drawback claim;
• Contain missing or incorrectly reported IEEPA HTSUS lines; and/or
• Lack complete electronic records in ACE.

CBP has stated that, absent compliance issues, valid CAPE refund claims are generally expected to be processed within approximately 60–90 days following acceptance of the declaration. Early practical experience, however, suggests that certain refunds may be issued more quickly - potentially within a few weeks - where entries are straightforward and free of compliance concerns.

4. Should importers file Post Summary Corrections (PSC) for unliquidated entries or take other actions for entries involving IEEPA tariffs?

CBP has specifically stated that PSCs for unliquidated entries should not be filed to claim IEEPA tariffs refunds; instead, CAPE Phase 1 is the exclusive administrative vehicle to submit IEEPA duty refunds for unliquidated entries.

Under CAPE, once a declaration is validated and accepted, the ACE updates the entry summary by removing the applicable IEEPA Chapter 99 tariff provisions and automatically recalculates the Normal Trade Relations duties owed (if any) as well as any other trade remedy tariffs, e.g., the Section 301 “China tariffs.”

Following CBP’s review, entries are liquidated or reliquidated, and refunds are issued via Automated Clearing House (ACH) -- typically to the IOR or, if properly designated, to an authorized notify party.

Once the entry is liquidated or reliquidated, the importer has up to 180 days to file a Protest. For any entries outside of CAPE Phase 1, this “final liquidation” date should be carefully monitored. Many importers are filing Protests out of an abundance of caution to preserve their rights to IEEPA refunds given that the timetable for Phase 2 of CAPE has yet to be announced by CBP.

5. Can a party other than the IOR receive IEEPA duty refunds?

Yes. Under CBP guidance, directing refunds to a party other than the IOR is a two-step process: (i) designating the notify party in the ACE Portal via CBP Form 4811, and (ii) including that party’s IOR number on each applicable entry summary.

As a practical matter, this designation must be in place before the CAPE declaration is submitted. While a PSC can ordinarily be used to add a notify party after entry filing, this is only viable if the PSC is completed before filing the CAPE claim. Once an entry has been submitted under CAPE, PSCs are no longer permitted and CBP will not add a notify party.

Accordingly, if a Form 4811 notify party was not established and reflected on the entry (either at the time of filing or via a PSC completed beforehand), any refund will default to the IOR, and no alternative party, e.g., a broker, can receive the refund directly through CAPE.

This creates an important planning consideration: importers, particularly nonresident IORs without U.S. bank accounts, should ensure that either ACH enrollment is in place or that Form 4811 designations are properly implemented and reflected on entries before submitting CAPE declarations, as post-filing corrections are not available.

6. Has CBP issued additional guidance on the CAPE refund process?

Yes. CBP continues to publish guidance and operational updates regarding CAPE implementation. Most notably, on April 28, 2026, Brandon Lord, Executive Director of CBP’s Trade Policy and Programs Directorate, filed a declaration with CIT providing a status update. According to that declaration, as of April 26, 2026:

More than 75,000 CAPE declarations had been submitted;

• 47,315 declarations passed file validation;
• 11,222,927 entries passed entry validation and were accepted for refund processing;
• 2,124,394 entries failed entry validation testing; and
• 1,746,000 validated entries had already been liquidated without IEEPA tariffs and entered the refund process.

CBP indicated that approximately 63% of declarations passed file validation and approximately 84% of validated entries passed entry validation testing.

In addition, CBP continues to update ACE-related guidance and Cargo Systems Messaging Service (CSMS) notices, including:

• ACE Entry Summary Error Dictionary guidance;
• Electronic refund (ACH) enrollment instructions;
• CAPE / IEEPA refund FAQs; and
• Technical filing guidance published through CBP’s official channels.

7. Does the Supreme Court’s IEEPA decision affect other trade remedy tariffs that remain in effect?

No. The Supreme Court’s decision concerning IEEPA tariffs does not affect other trade remedy measures. Section 232 tariffs remain fully in effect and continue to expand in scope, with additional measures likely.

Section 232 tariffs currently apply to a core group of products and derivative categories, including (based on HTSUS classification and applicable presidential proclamations):

• Steel
• Steel derivatives
• Aluminum
• Aluminum derivatives
• Semi-finished copper and certain copper derivative products
• Autos and light trucks
• Auto and light truck parts
• Heavy- and medium-duty trucks
• Heavy- and medium-duty truck parts

In addition, the administration has expanded, or is actively expanding, Section 232 measures into other strategic sectors, including:

• Pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients (targeted products currently subject to or under active Section 232 action)
• Critical minerals
• Semiconductors

Certain downstream manufactured products, e.g., furniture and other goods incorporating covered metals, may also be affected indirectly, depending on the scope of derivative product coverage under applicable annexes.

Most notably, on April 2, 2026, President Trump issued an updated Presidential Proclamation addressing steel, aluminum, and copper imports. These measures introduced revised annex structures establishing different tariff treatment depending on product classification and derivative status. Depending on the applicable annex, imports may now be subject to additional duties of 50%, 25%, 15%, or may qualify for exclusion.

Importantly, for certain covered derivative products, Section 232 duties are now applied based on the full customs value of the imported merchandise, rather than limited to the value of the underlying steel or aluminum content. This significantly increases overall duty exposure for many downstream products and industrial equipment.

In parallel, the administration has implemented and continues to develop Section 232 measures targeting the pharmaceutical sector. Under the current framework:

• Certain patented pharmaceutical products and related ingredients may be subject to elevated tariff rates (potentially up to 100%);
• Certain onshoring or domestic investment programs may qualify for reduced or phased tariff treatment; and
• Many general pharmaceutical products are not currently subject to these measures, although further expansion remains under consideration.

The Section 301 tariffs also remain fully in effect, most notably those imposed on imports from China, which continue to apply across multiple product lists and tariff rates.

An updated Section 301 investigation of China was announced by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) on March 11, 2026 as part of the initiation of two major Section 301 investigations covering:

• Structural Excess Capacity Investigation (16 economies)
• Forced Labor Investigation (60 economies)

These investigations collectively target overcapacity and failure to enforce laws aimed at preventing the importation of items made with forced labor and representing a potentially broad expansion of Section 301 tariff authority. Many expect new Section 301 tariffs to be announced by July 24, 2026, the date the Section 122 tariffs expire (unless Congress authorizes a continuation or modification of these duties).

Overall, importers should expect continued expansion and increasing complexity of trade remedy tariffs throughout 2026, including broader country coverage, higher effective duty rates, and evolving compliance requirements.

8. What is the current status of the Section 122 tariffs implemented following the IEEPA Supreme Court decision?

President Trump imposed a temporary 10% import surcharge under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 beginning February 24, 2026. The administration relied on Section 122’s balance-of-payments authority following the invalidation of the IEEPA tariffs by the U.S. Supreme Court.

However, in a May 7, 2026 decision, the CIT held that the 10% global tariffs imposed under Section 122 were unlawful because the statutory conditions — specifically the existence of a qualifying “balance of payments deficit” — were not satisfied. The CIT determined that the administration relied on an overly broad interpretation of Section 122, emphasizing that trade deficits or current account deficits cannot substitute for the specific statutory concept of “balance of payments” intended by Congress. The decision reflects a narrow reading of tariff authority delegated by Congress to the President in this statute. To interpret the statute otherwise, the CIT held, would raise broader constitutional considerations regarding the non-delegation doctrine and the separation of powers.

The CIT issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the collection of Section 122 duties as to two importers and the State of Washington, not a nationwide injunction. However, on May 12, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) granted the government’s request for an immediate temporary stay of both the CIT’s judgment and injunction pending further consideration of the stay request on appeal, thereby allowing continued collection of Section 122 tariffs for now. The CAFC also consolidated the appeal and provided plaintiffs with seven days to respond.

Accordingly, the legal status of the Section 122 tariffs remains in flux and subject to ongoing appellate review.  Many believe this case will also proceed to the U.S. Supreme Court so importers should continue to monitor developments while considering options to preserve their rights to refunds.

9. What other potential duties or trade actions might the Administration impose?

Beyond Sections 232, 301, and 122 trade remedy tariffs, the Trump administration retains access to several additional trade tools that it could use to impose or expand tariff measures.

Most notably, Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 authorizes the President to impose duties of up to 50% on imports from countries determined to discriminate against U.S. commerce. Although this authority has not been previously invoked, it provides broad discretion and does not require a formal agency investigation, congressional approval, or a defined duration, making it a potentially flexible — albeit historically unused — tool.

In addition, the administration may continue to rely on traditional trade remedy regimes, including ADD and CVD measures, which are product- and country-specific and can result in significant additional duties based on findings of dumping or subsidization. Other measures, such as safeguards under Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 and tariff-rate quotas or absolute quotas, also remain available depending on market conditions and domestic industry actions.

Accordingly, even aside from the more prominent tariff authorities discussed above, importers should continue to monitor these alternative mechanisms as potential sources of additional duties or import restrictions going forward.

IEEPA Tariff Codes