IEEPA Tariff Refunds: Frequently Asked Questions

On February 20, 2026, in a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s tariffs based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), ruling that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs because that power belongs to Congress. The decision invalidates the fentanyl-related and “reciprocal” IEEPA tariffs but leaves other tariffs (e.g., tariffs under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974), and antidumping duties and countervailing duties unchanged. However, while the Court eliminated the legal foundation for the IEEPA tariffs, it did not address whether the government must return that revenue, nor did it outline any mechanism or timeline for potential refunds. Immediately following the Supreme Court decision, President Trump issued an executive order (EO) revoking the previous IEEPA EOs mandating tariffs of various rates and he also announced a 10% “replacement” tariff based on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, creating compliance and operational uncertainty as U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issues implementation guidance.

1. 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 already 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 2, 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 as of now is “not likely.” Because the CIT agreed with CBP’s request to develop an orderly administrative refund claim process via the agency’s Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) on March 6, 2026, it seems that litigation (at least for the majority IEEPA tariff refund claims) will not be needed.

However, CBP’s requested 45-day deadline for developing this ACE process may not be met and, without an administrative process, litigation could be triggered at that time. Nonetheless, under the CIT’s “residual jurisdiction” (under which most lawsuits are currently being filed), importers have two years from the time the “cause of action” accrued to file suit. That cause of action is being interpreted as the date the first IEEPA “fentanyl” tariffs were paid, i.e., February 4, 2025.  Thus, the deadline for commencing litigation at the earliest is February 3, 2027.

It should be noted that the Supreme Court’s ruling vacated a decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruling that the IEEPA tariffs were illegal. The Supreme Court unequivocally stated that the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving tariff and trade matters. Thus, if litigation is ultimately necessary to obtain IEEPA tariff refunds, the CIT is the only venue in which to file cases.

3. While I wait for the official U.S. government position on how to obtain refunds, what should I be doing in the interim to prepare my refund claims?

Importers and businesses that paid IEEPA tariffs should begin preparing duty refund calculations using the dates above for any IEEPA tariffs paid. To do this, if they haven’t done so already, importers should sign up for an ACE (Automated Commercial Environment) portal account to gain access to all of their import (and export) data maintained by CBP in this “single window” online system used by all U.S. government agencies that have regulations impacting imported and exported merchandise.

The specific ACE report to review is the Entry Summary details report (ES-003), which can be exported to an Excel spreadsheet. To identify the IEEPA tariffs, the column for the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) code should be filtered to select 9903.01.XX and 9903.02.XX and further filtered at the eight-digit level by country. See below for a complete list of the IEEPA tariff codes by country.

To complete the calculations, include interest at rates published quarterly by the IRS in the Federal Register.

4. Should I file Post Summary Corrections (PSC) for any entries that are still open (“unliquidated”) and on which IEEPA duties were deposited at the time of entry?

Although CBP allows importers to provide corrected data in the form of re-filed entries via the PSC mechanism, we understand that CBP’s Centers of Excellence and Expertise are awaiting guidance from HQ before processing any IEEPA tariff refunds. Thus, we are getting reports that CBP is simply denying these PSC requests. Given the uncertain procedural path ahead, it seems reasonable to wait until entries get closed out, i.e., are liquidated, on the normal 314-day cycle and then file Protests if the entries are not liquidated with a refund of the IEEPA tariffs.

In fact, this course of action (awaiting refunds via CBP’s normal liquidation process) is exactly what the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) directed CBP to do in an order dated March 4, 2025. The CIT also ordered CBP to re-liquidate any entries previously liquidated that were not yet final, i.e., where the 180-day post-liquidation period to file a Protest had not yet expired. The Court’s order did not address what would happen to entries which were finally liquidated that were beyond the Protest period.

However, on March 6, 2026, the CIT suspended its order after CBP certified in an affidavit that it could not possibly handle refunds of this magnitude through the normal liquidation process. Thus, it requested additional time to come up an administrative process utilizing ACE to handle the “53,173,939 refunds involving 330,566 importers.” In response, the CIT suspended its order and allowed CBP to proceed with developing a process that will involve the following steps:

1. The importer files a declaration in the ACE that includes a list of entries on which IEEPA duties were paid.
2. The ACE runs a series of validations on each entry within the declaration and automatically re-calculates the duty owed without the IEEPA tariffs (with applicable interest).
3. CBP verifies the declaration and processes refunds as soon as practicable.
4. The ACE automatically finalizes (liquidates or reliquidates) the entries.
5. The ACE automatically aggregates the refunds with interest by importer and liquidation date.
6. CBP certifies the refunds.
7. The Department of the Treasury issues IEEPA refunds electronically.

CBP claims it is making all possible efforts to have this new ACE functionality ready for use in 45 days, i.e., by mid-April 2026.

5. Has CBP published any guidance on the refund process?

The affidavit filed by CBP with the CIT on March 6, 2026 in response to the CIT order set forth the following information:

• 330,000+ importers paid IEEPA duties across 53 million entries totaling approximately $166 billion;
• 20+ million entries remain unliquidated and are caught in the middle of this process;
• CBP says manual processing would require 4.4 million staff hours and that immediate full refunds are not operationally possible;
• CBP is proposing a new self-service portal where importers file a declaration listing their IEEPA entries;
• The system would automatically recalculate duties and interest owed;
• CBP estimates this will be ready in approximately 45 days (mid-April 2026); and
• This process would be available to all importers, not just those who have filed lawsuits

6. Does the Supreme Court’s IEEPA decision impact any of the other trade remedy tariffs that are still in place?

No. All of the Section 232 tariffs are still in place, and more are likely coming. The Section 232 tariffs apply to products in the following categories (based on HTSUS tariff codes):

• Steel
• Steel Derivatives
• Aluminum
• Aluminum Derivatives
• Semi-Finished Copper and Intensive Copper Derivative Products
• Autos and Light Trucks
• Auto and Light Truck Parts
• Heavy- and Medium-Duty Trucks
• Heavy- and Medium-Duty Truck Parts
• Furniture
• Lumber
• Critical Minerals
• Semiconductors

Absent from this list are products where investigations are still pending: pharmaceutical products, wind turbines, polysilicon (and their derivatives), commercial aircraft and jet engines, unmanned aircraft systems and parts, robotics and industrial machinery, and personal protective equipment, medical consumables, and medical equipment and devices. Importers should expect new Section 232 tariffs on all of these products categories, as well as possible increases in the duty rates associated with merchandise covered by completed investigations.

In addition, the Section 301 “China” tariffs are still in place ranging from 7.5% to 100% based on the HTSUS codes set forth on the original “Lists” (1, 2, 3, and 4.A) published in 2018 and subsequently updated. These duties apply on top of the Normal Trade Relations duties and the Section 232 duties. More Section 301 investigations are expected to be launched prior to the expiration of the Section 122 tariffs discussed below.

7. What about the new Section 122 duties that “replace” the IEEPA tariffs?

President Trump issued an EO on February 20, 2026 announcing a temporary import surcharge of 10% under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows such actions to correct “balance of payments” problems with U.S. trading partners. This surcharge went into effect on February 24, 2026 and will remain in effect for 150 days. Unless Congress passes legislation to keep these temporary duties in place, they will expire on July 24, 2026.

Certain categories of goods are exempt from the Section 122 tariffs:

• Certain critical minerals
• Metals used in currency and bullion
• Energy and energy products
• Natural resources and fertilizers that cannot be grown, mined, or otherwise produced in the U.S. or grown, mined, or otherwise produced in sufficient quantities to meet domestic demand
• Certain agricultural products, including beef, tomatoes, and oranges
• Pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients
• Certain electronics
• Passenger vehicles, certain light trucks, certain medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, buses, and certain parts of passenger vehicles, light trucks, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, and buses
• Certain aerospace products
• Information materials, donations, and accompanied baggage
• All articles and parts of articles currently or that later become subject to additional import restrictions imposed pursuant to section 232 of the trade expansion act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1862) (Section 232)
• Articles that are entered free of duty under USMCA, including any treatment set forth in subchapter xxiii of chapter 98 and subchapter xxii of chapter 99 of the HTSUS, as related to the agreement between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada
• Textile and apparel articles that are entered free of duty under CAFTA-DR (as a good of Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, or Nicaragua under the Dominican Republic-Central America free trade agreement).

Importers should also be aware of a new lawsuit filed on March 5, 2026 at the CIT by many U.S. states’ Attorneys General. Their principal argument posits that a balance of payments crisis required to invoke Section 122 is a currency crisis that was of great concern when Congress enacted Section 122 in 1974 - but which can no longer exist following the formal end of the fixed-rate currency exchange system in 1976. They claim that the president cannot meet the statutory requirements of Section 122 by conflating “trade deficits” (the basis of the now-illegal IEEPA tariffs) with “balance of payments” shortfalls, and his effort to impose tariffs under this statute is ultra vires, i.e., it exceeds the statutory authority granted to the president. Obviously, the judicial process will progress over time to reach final resolution – but importers may ultimately have a new pool of duty refunds available after the current collection of Section 122 tariffs ends on July 24, 2026.

8. What other potential duties might the Administration impose?

In addition to expanded use of Sections 232 and 301, another trade remedy law that has never been used before is also in play. Under Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, the president can impose tariffs of up to 50% on imports from any country that “discriminates” against U.S. commerce as compared to other nations.

The statute is noticeably short and ambiguous. It assigns a role to the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) to “ascertain and at all times to be informed” whether discrimination is occurring and to “bring the matter to the attention of the President, together with recommendations.” The statute separately authorizes the president to impose tariffs “whenever he shall find as a fact” that discrimination exists.

This statute does not define “discrimination,” requires no agency investigation, requires no input from the U.S. Congress, has no expiration date once the duties are imposed, and allows a complete ban of imports from offending countries. With this background, it seems reasonable to assume that Section 338 duties might also be in the pipeline.

IEEPA Tariff Codes