Fox Rothschild | With the Tariffs Struck Down, Now the Refund Fight Begins

Key Points

• Importers who paid IEEPA duties in 2025–2026 have legal a basis for refunds but must take affirmative steps to recover.
• Only the IEEPA additional ad valorem duty component is refundable — not MFN, Section 232, or Section 301 duties.
• Refund rights belong to the importer of record; downstream buyers must recover through contract or assignment.
• Importers can join existing protective refund litigation in the U.S. Court of International Trade.

The Merits Are Decided — Refunds Are Not

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that week that President Trump did not have the power to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The justices did not address the question of refunds, leaving resolution of that issue to the lower courts and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

As we noted in our December 2025 alert, importers across the country have been filing protective lawsuits in the U.S. Court of International Trade to preserve refund rights while the Supreme Court considered the legality of the IEEPA tariffs. That bet has paid off. The Supreme Court confirmed what the Court of International Trade and Federal Circuit held: IEEPA does not authorize tariffs, period.

Fox Rothschild’s International Trade team is already representing clients in refunds lawsuits that were filed as protective claims prior to the tariffs being struck down.

Below, we address the questions we hear most frequently from clients and businesses.

Most-Asked Questions

Who is entitled to refunds?

If your company paid IEEPA tariffs in 2025 or 2026, you have a legal basis to seek refunds — but refunds will not happen automatically. You must take affirmative steps now to preserve your claims, and the deadlines are unforgiving.

The legal victory means importers are entitled to recover the IEEPA duties they paid. But entitlement and recovery are two different things. At a minimum, you must file a protest for each individual entry within 180 days of liquidation of your entry (as discussed below).

Which imports qualify?

The Supreme Court’s holding that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs is the legal predicate for recovery of IEEPA additional duty amounts collected on covered entries. However, eligibility is entry-specific. Only the IEEPA “additional ad valorem” duty component is at issue — not base Most Favored Nation (MFN) duties and not duties imposed under other authorities such as Section 232 or Section 301.

Those seeking refunds will need to isolate the IEEPA duty lines in your entry data and confirm each entry’s liquidation status.

Will CBP automatically issue refunds?

No — not yet, and possibly not at all without action on your part. As of today, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has not published a universal refund program and the Supreme Court did not provide any guidance with respect to refunds. The conservative and correct approach is to assume you must preserve and perfect claims through existing customs procedures — Post Summary Corrections, protests, and/or CIT litigation — until CBP issues binding refund instructions.

Who can claim the refund — importer of record, consignee, or downstream buyer?

Customs remedies flow through the importer of record and the protest/litigation sequence. If your business is not the importer of record, customs law does not automatically convert economic incidence into refund standing.

Downstream buyers generally must recover through contractual reimbursement or assignment, not by directly demanding a CBP refund.

What deadlines apply, and which are fatal?

This is where urgency is greatest. Three deadlines matter most:

• Post Summary Corrections (PSCs): PSCs can be used to seek refunds on unliquidated entries, but only up to 15 days before the scheduled liquidation date (generally within 300 days of entry summary filing). Once within 15 days of liquidation — or after liquidation — the PSC window is closed.
• Protests: For liquidated entries, a protest under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 must generally be filed within 180 days after liquidation. It is critical that all importers monitor entries that have already been liquidated and file protests stating that the Supreme Court has ruled the IEEPA duties unconstitutional and that CBP should refund all IEEPA duties associated with those entries.
• CIT litigation: If you pursue a residual jurisdiction action under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), the statute of limitations is two years from accrual under § 2636(i) — but accrual is a litigation question, and you should treat it conservatively.

Missing the protest window is often fatal for the standard administrative route, because liquidation becomes “final” unless timely protested. For entries outside the 180-day window, a § 1581(i) residual jurisdiction path may still be available, but it is not risk-free and will require winning arguments on accrual and adequacy of other remedies.

Can the government offset our refund against other debts?

Yes. Offset and netting against outstanding CBP obligations — duties, fees, penalties — is a routine government practice. If your company has material outstanding customs liabilities, your net refund could be significantly lower than the total IEEPA duties paid. Conduct a debt audit at the start of the refund process, not after the refund fails to arrive.

Can we join existing refund litigation?

In many cases, yes. Post-decision, the litigation focus shifts from “are the tariffs legal” to what procedures need to be followed to obtain refunds. Our goal is to ensure clients fall within whatever plaintiff universe receives court-ordered reliquidation and refunds.

This information is intended to inform firm clients and friends about legal developments, including the decisions of courts and administrative bodies. Nothing in this alert should be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Readers should not act upon the information contained in this alert without seeking the advice of legal counsel. Views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily this law firm or its clients. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Authors:
• Lizbeth R. Levinson, Partner, FOX ROTHSCHILD
• Brittney R. Powell, Partner, FOX ROTHSCHILD

Compliments of Fox Rothschild – a member of the EACCNY