A landmark ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court has invalidated billions in customs duties — but refunds are neither automatic nor guaranteed. Those who wait too long risk forfeiting their claims.
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision unprecedented in the history of American foreign trade. By a vote of six to three, the Court declared unconstitutional and void all tariffs imposed by the U.S. government pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Hundreds of thousands of importers worldwide, who had paid substantial customs duties over recent months, now face a question as significant as it is complex: how do they get their money back?
The answer is anything but straightforward — and time is running out.
A Ruling of Enormous Scope
At the time of the decision, the IEEPA tariffs had generated approximately $166 billion in revenue for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). That sum is spread across more than 53 million individual customs entries filed by over 330,000 importers — an administrative volume that alone hints at why the unwinding process will be no simple task.
It is important to understand what the ruling does not mean. The decision affects exclusively the IEEPA tariffs. Tariffs imposed under Section 232 — those on steel, aluminum, and motor vehicles — remain fully in force, as do the Section 301 tariffs applicable to imports from China. The administration has also moved swiftly to introduce a new baseline tariff of ten percent under Section 122, applicable to all countries of importation. An increase to fifteen percent has been announced but has not yet been formally enacted.
“The ruling annuls the IEEPA tariffs — but not the obligation to take active steps to recover the funds.”
What Has Happened Since the Ruling
The Supreme Court’s decision did not include a restitution order. Jurisdiction over refund matters rests with the Court of International Trade (CIT), the specialized federal court of exclusive jurisdiction in customs disputes. And a great deal has happened before that court since the ruling was handed down.
On March 4, the CIT issued a sweeping order directing CBP to refund all IEEPA tariffs to all importers — including those who had not filed their own lawsuits. This interpretation is naturally favorable to affected parties. The U.S. government, however, takes a different view: it maintains that only importers who have actively brought suit before the CIT are entitled to a refund. This dispute over the scope of eligibility remains unresolved — and therein lies the real risk for those who choose to wait passively.
Two days later, on March 6, enforcement of the order was temporarily stayed. The reason: CBP requires time to develop an automated refund portal called CAPE, which is expected to go live in mid-April 2026. Given the sheer volume of entries to be processed — over 53 million — it is reasonable to expect that full processing of all claims will take months, if not years.
Finally, on March 20, the CIT clarified the scope of its order: the refund directive extends to all IEEPA tariffs, including those levied on imports from Brazil and India. The only exclusion applies to imports processed under the so-called de minimisexemption, whereby smaller shipments falling below certain thresholds are cleared without duty.
Deadlines Are Already Running
Protests filed with CBP must be submitted within 180 days of the date of liquidation of the relevant customs entry. Direct actions before the CIT are subject to a two-year statute of limitations. Both deadlines begin to run from the date of the individual import — regardless of whether the CAPE portal is yet operational.
Who Is Eligible — and for What?
The party entitled to seek a refund is generally the Importer of Record (IOR) — the person or entity that appeared before U.S. customs authorities as the responsible importer at the time of entry. Where a customs broker paid the duties in its own name, it may itself have standing to claim a refund directly.
As regards the applicable time periods: for imports from China, Canada, and Mexico, the eligible period begins on February 7, 2025. For imports from all other countries — including European Union member states — April 7, 2025 is the relevant start date. Imports from Brazil and India were expressly included by the CIT’s order of March 20, 2026.
As already noted, tariffs imposed under Section 232 on steel, aluminum, and motor vehicles, and those under Section 301 on Chinese goods, are not subject to refund. These remain fully in effect and are excluded from the scope of the ruling.
Two Paths to Refund
Parties seeking to assert their claims have, in essence, two avenues — with very different risk profiles.
The first, and by far the more legally secure, is to bring an action before the Court of International Trade. The U.S. government has expressly confirmed that litigating parties are entitled to full restitution, including accrued interest. Given the risk that a broadly-framed refund order could be overturned on appeal, this avenue provides the most reliable foundation for protecting one’s claim. Those considering this route should seek legal counsel without delay, as the filing deadlines are already running.
The second avenue is the CBP administrative process: the planned CAPE portal (Customs Automated Processing and Execution), expected to be activated in mid-April 2026 within the existing ACE system. Through this portal, importers or their brokers will be able to file a so-called CAPE statement listing all affected customs entries. The system will automatically recalculate the refundable amounts and disburse them via ACH bank transfer. This requires, however, that the relevant ACH registration in the ACE portal has already been completed — without that banking information on file, no payment can be issued. This registration should therefore be completed as soon as possible, regardless of which refund pathway is ultimately pursued.
It must be expressly noted: the CAPE procedure is more convenient and does not initially require legal representation. However, it carries the risk that importers who have not also filed suit before the CIT could be left empty-handed in the event of an unfavorable appellate ruling. Those seeking to eliminate this risk should pursue both avenues simultaneously.
What Must Be Done Now
Regardless of which refund pathway a company elects, there are a number of steps that should be taken immediately.
The first priority is a thorough review of customs records. All import transactions processed under IEEPA tariff codes must be identified and clearly distinguished from entries subject to Section 232 or Section 301 duties. For each entry, the amount of duties paid and the precise date of customs liquidation must be documented — since the running deadlines depend on that date. All relevant documents — including customs summaries, commercial invoices, bills of lading, and proof of payment — must be carefully preserved. The accuracy of HTS classifications and country-of-origin declarations should also be verified.
Simultaneously, companies should register for ACH payments within CBP’s ACE portal immediately, if they have not already done so. Without this prerequisite, no disbursement through the CAPE system will be possible.
Finally — and this cannot be overstated — legal counsel should be engaged as soon as possible. Coordinating among the importer, customs broker, trade consultant, and tax advisor is a complex undertaking. Missed deadlines cannot be undone. An attorney specializing in international trade law can not only assist with the filing of suit, but also help to quantify the company’s exposure with precision and develop the optimal strategy for asserting its claims.
Waiting for the CAPE portal to launch, or for a possible universal refund order to materialize, is not a risk-free strategy.
The situation remains fluid: further judicial decisions are expected, the procedural rules governing the CAPE portal are not yet fully known, and the government’s position may evolve. What does not change are the running deadlines — and the fact that only those who act now will fully preserve their rights.
Massimo Fontana Ros
