IEEPA tariff refund process: Where things stand
After the Supreme Court’s Feb. 20, 2026, decision striking down the IEEPA tariffs, attention has turned to the refund process, which is now being handled by the Court of International Trade (CIT) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
On March 4, 2026, the CIT issued a sweeping order requiring CBP to liquidate all unliquidated entries without IEEPA duties, and re-liquidate any liquidated entries that are still within the 180-day protest period, also removing IEEPA duties. These overpayments will flow back through the normal liquidation or re-liquidation refund mechanism. The relief applies broadly to all importers, and millions of entries are affected. CBP is currently upgrading its systems to address these refunds.
The CIT also directed CBP to explain how it intends to handle entries that are already fully liquidated and past the protest deadline for traditional administrative remedies — the most complex category of potential refunds, and one that’s still unresolved. There’s currently no firm timeline or enforcement mechanism governing when CBP must process these refunds, nor is there a mechanism in place to enforce the refund process. A new court-directed or special administrative action may be required. While this is being decided, companies seeking refunds should identify the liquidation status of each affected entry now, gather Automated Commercial Environment data, and prepare to act quickly when the refund mechanism goes live.
Section 122 tariffs
Immediately after the Supreme Court struck down the IEEPA tariffs, the Trump administration moved to invoke Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — a rarely used authority allowing temporary import surcharges tied to balance-of-payments issues. A 10% global surcharge took effect on Feb. 24, 2026, and CBP is currently collecting these duties.
Section 122 measures can last no more than 150 days, meaning the surcharge will expire around July 24, 2026, unless Congress extends it — something many trade experts consider unlikely. As a result, most trade experts view this surcharge as a temporary bridge while the administration pursues longer‑term tariffs under Section 301 and Section 232.
The use of Section 122 in the current context faces significant legal risk because the statute was designed for balance-of-payments crises, not trade-deficit concerns. No court has previously interpreted its scope, and multiple private plaintiffs — and 24 states — are currently challenging the Section 122 action.
What’s next? Sections 301 and 232 investigations, USMCA negotiations
With short-term measures in flux, the administration is now pivoting toward more durable, litigation-resistant tariff authorities.
As of mid-March 2026, the administration is running two sweeping Section 301 investigations:
- Structural excess manufacturing capacity. This action is targeting 16 major trading partners for alleged overproduction in sectors such as steel, autos, semiconductors, batteries, chemicals, machinery, and other manufacturing industries, causing distorted global markets and displaced U.S. production.
- Failure to enforce forced-labor import bans. A separate investigation covering 60 economies (including Mexico), is tasked with determining whether insufficient forced-labor enforcement is creating an unfair cost advantage and burdening U.S. commerce.
Together, these investigations are designed to create the legal foundation for a new long-term tariff regime that can avoid the kind of constitutional vulnerabilities that voided the IEEPA tariffs and threaten the current Section 122 action.
The administration also maintains 12 active or recently initiated Section 232 investigations, focused on whether imports of metals, vehicles, and a wide range of manufactured products threaten U.S. national security. Several of these investigations are ongoing. Those that are concluded have resulted in new tariffs, and more are expected as pending investigations conclude.
Alongside the tariff investigations, formal review and negotiation of the USMCA has officially begun, with the United States and Mexico launching bilateral discussions on March 19. Key areas of focus for the talks include addressing rules of origin, reducing reliance on nonregional imports, enhancing North American supply chain security, and alignment of USMCA with Trump-era tariffs. Canada is expected to join the talks in May. The negotiations form part of the first mandatory six-year joint review, with a July 1, 2026, deadline for all three countries to decide whether to renew the agreement for another 16 years, continue without renewal (leading to annual reviews), or withdraw entirely.
Tariff survival and resilience strategy: What you should be doing now to mitigate risk
With the tariff landscape shifting — but not disappearing — companies should operate under the assumption that some form of sustained tariff pressure is the new normal. Below are five important steps to consider for reducing exposure, stabilizing costs, and improving resilience.
1. Map your tariff exposure at the entry-level
Most companies look at total duty spend, but the next phase of tariffs, especially Section 301, will be country-, sector-, and product-specific. Ensure systems are in place to:
- Identify every product, component, and raw material affected by potential Section 301 or 232 outcomes.
- Revalidate HTS classifications (misclassification is a major risk amplifier).
This will create a foundation for forward risk planning.
2. Build alternative sourcing scenarios
With over 60 countries under Section 301 investigation, the next wave of tariffs may hit unexpected trading partners.
- Evaluate backup suppliers in countries less likely to face trade remedies.
- Consider dual sourcing to avoid single-country tariff dependence.
- Assess domestic or nearshore options in Mexico, Canada, or Central America.
- Engage suppliers early to understand their exposure (which often passes through to you).
Waiting until tariffs are imposed may have you competing for the same limited supplier capacity and at painful prices.
3. Strengthen contract terms to shift or share tariff risk
Review contracts for tariff allocation and consider including tariff adjustment clauses and adding pass-through pricing mechanisms tied to changing duties. Share your tariff timelines and updated exposure analysis with customers and prepare them for possible price adjustments. Companies that don’t proactively address tariff allocation often end up absorbing the full cost.
4. Review your customs compliance structure
Better compliance can yield lower duty exposure and provide optimal refund opportunities. Mitigate risks such as liquidation finality that can block refunds, penalties for incorrect classification or origin, or being swept into Section 301 remedy categories incorrectly. To ensure compliance:
- Run internal HTS and COO audits.
- Review broker performance.
- Ensure strong recordkeeping.
5. Undertake scenario planning for multiple tariff outcomes
With Section 122 expiring in July and dozens of Section 301 and 232 actions pending, now’s the time to model for tariff regimes across multiple countries, targeted tariffs on specific sectors, and potential exclusions. This informs pricing, financial planning, inventory decisions, and customer negotiations. Scenario planning should cover both tariff and nontariff remedies such as quotas.
Finally, consider participating in Section 301 public comment and hearing processes. Unlike IEEPA tariffs, Section 301 gives your company a voice. Consider submitting comments when your products or sectors are at stake. Provide evidence of economic harm or supply chain impact and work with your trade associations to amplify the impact. USTR often carves out exclusions based on industry feedback but only for companies that speak up.
Bottom line: Tariffs aren’t going away
Even with the Supreme Court’s invalidation of the IEEPA tariffs, the broader tariff landscape continues to evolve. The focus is shifting from discretionary executive actions to investigation-driven, statutorily anchored measures under Sections 301 and 232. The overall direction remains toward more tariff activity, not less — meaning companies should view tariffs as a permanent operating reality and not a temporary disruption. Build tariffs into your long-term planning now, and you’ll be better positioned to protect margins, stabilize supply chains, and avoid costly surprises.
