Policy Memo
Topline
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the tariffs imposed by the administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) were unlawful.
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump1 that the tariffs imposed by the administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA)2 were unlawful. What the court did not do is explain what the remedy should be, whether those who paid the tariffs should get their money back and, if so, how the refund process would work. Only Justice Kavanaugh addressed the issue, in his dissent, by noting an exchange during oral arguments between Justice Barrett and Neal K. Katyal (an attorney for V.O.S. Selections)3 that the refund procedure was likely to be a “mess.”4 It is a mess. It is a mess caused primarily by three factors: (1) the Trump Administration’s imposition of tariffs purporting to use authority granted by IEEPA, (2) lower courts’ failure to enjoin those tariffs which in turn was largely a function of the government’s stipulation that the tariffs would be refunded if found to be unlawful and (3) the Supreme Court’s failure to provide any guidance about how to proceed.5 This Report analyzes what may happen and makes recommendations about what should happen to resolve the mess. It considers legal, economic and fairness issues and examines the role of courts, the Executive Branch and Congress.
During 2025, President Trump issued several Executive Orders that imposed new and substantial tariffs on imports from every country in the world.6 The Administration claimed the authority to do so under IEEPA. The IEEPA tariffs have been changed many times.7 Most of these tariffs were branded “reciprocal,” although the rates imposed had nothing to do with the rates imposed by foreign governments.
Affected parties almost immediately challenged the Administration’s authority to impose tariffs under IEEPA. Both the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT)8 and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia9 ruled against the Administration. The decision of the CIT against the Administration was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.10 However, the Federal Circuit Court, while affirming the decision of the CIT as to the illegality of the tariffs, vacated the CIT’s universal injunction and remanded the case to the CIT to consider whether the injunction met the standards for such injunctions recently outlined by the Supreme Court.11 Moreover, the Federal Circuit Court explicitly neither affirmed nor reversed the CIT’s holding that any relief short of a universal injunction would be an unconstitutional violation of the Uniformity Clause of the Constitution.12 As described in detail below, in a successful effort to fend off injunctions prohibiting the imposition of the IEEPA tariffs, the government made many stipulations and representations in numerous cases that the tariffs would be refunded if found to be unlawful. Thus, the tariffs continued to be collected. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on September 9, 2025 and consolidated the two cases.13 It heard oral arguments on November 5, 2025.14
There are various estimates of how much money in IEEPA tariffs was collected. They range from $130 billion to $175 billion.15 In general, the estimates vary because it is unclear what percentage of the increase in 2025 tariff revenue is attributable to the IEEPA tariffs. According to a Wall Street Journal analysis, at least 1,800 companies have filed lawsuits seeking refunds and more than 300,000 importers have been subject to the tariffs.16 In calendar year 2025, $287 billion in customs duties were collected, up 192 percent compared to the prior year when $98 billion in duties were collected.17 Roughly a third of the 2025 duties ($97.5 billion) came in the fourth quarter, so the annual collections in 2026 before the Learning Resources decision and the Trump Executive Order terminating collection of the tariffs18 were approaching a $400 billion a year pace.19 It is not clear exactly how much of the increased tariff revenue is due to IEEPA tariffs as opposed to tariffs imposed under other provisions. The IEEPA tariffs, however, account for the bulk of the tariff increases imposed. If 80 percent of the increase in 2025 was due to the IEEPA tariffs, a reasonable estimate is that approximately $190 billion of refunds are due.20 If 60 percent of the 2025 increase was due to the IEEPA tariffs, then that amount falls to approximately $142 billion. Based on incomplete U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data, it is probably around 70 percent.21 This implies that about $166 billion in IEEPA tariffs were collected.
In a March 6, 2026 affidavit filed with the CIT, the CBP estimated that “as of March 4, 2026, over 330,000 importers have made a total of over 53 million entries in which they have deposited or paid duties imposed pursuant to IEEPA. As of March 4, 2026, the total amount of IEEPA duties and estimated duty deposits collected pursuant to IEEPA is approximately $166 billion. Approximately 20.1 million entries remain unliquidated as of March 4, 2026.22 There is now an active market in refund claims where investors buy the rights to future tariff refunds from importers.23 This, of course, creates an environment where individuals can potentially benefit from proximity to the government. Further, this creates the possibility of a situation where the beneficiaries of the refunds may be very different from those that paid the tariffs in the first place.
There is strong reason to believe that the courts will require the administration to refund the tariffs in full both because of judicial estoppel and due process requirements. It is entirely unclear what means will be used to effect the refunds and what requirements will be imposed on importers who seek refunds. As discussed below, some courts may enter the fray in an unpredictable manner due to class action lawsuits.
“[W]here a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, assume a contrary position, especially if it be to the prejudice of the party who has acquiesced in the position formerly taken by him. This rule, known as judicial estoppel, ‘generally prevents a party from prevailing in one phase of a case on an argument and then relying on a contradictory argument to prevail in another phase.’”24 In multiple cases litigating the legality of the IEEPA tariffs, the government stipulated or represented that if the tariffs were found to be unlawful, then it would refund any tariff revenue collected. This was done in an effort to fend off injunctive relief prohibiting the collection of the IEEPA tariffs.
For example, in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, the government made the following representation:
2. Conversely, a stay would not cognizably harm plaintiffs. If tariffs imposed on plaintiffs during these appeals are ultimately held unlawful, then the government will issue refunds to plaintiffs, including any postjudgment interest that accrues. (p. 25)25
In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the government made the following argument:
Accordingly, plaintiffs have shown nothing more than a “temporary loss of income” as a result of the tariffs they challenge, which does not constitute irreparable harm. See Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 90 (1974). Their speculative allegations of harm from a single self-interested declarant, combined with the availability of a refund were the challenged tariffs held unlawful, preclude a finding that the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction is necessary to prevent imminent irreparable injury. (p. 40)26
In Popsockets, LLC v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the government made the following stipulation:
2. Defendants stipulate that they will not oppose the Court’s authority to order reliquidation of entries of merchandise subject to the challenged IEEPA duties and that they will refund any IEEPA duties found to have been unlawfully collected, after a final and unappealable decision has been issued finding the duties to have been unlawfully collected and ordering defendants to refund the duties. Defendants stipulate to this, even though they disagree with plaintiff regarding the merits and appropriateness of granting injunctive relief.27
In AGS Company Automotive Solutions v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection the government made the following stipulation:
[E]ven if future entries are liquidated, defendants do not intend to oppose the [c]ourt’s authority to order reliquidation … Such reliquidation would result in a refund of all duties determined to be unlawfully assessed, with interest.28
As recently as January 2026 in AGS Company Automotive Solutions v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection the government made the following representation to the CIT:
The Court asks defendants to clearly define “the challenged IEEPA duties” referenced in Popsockets in light of our request that our stipulation apply to current and future similarly situated plaintiffs. Similarly situated plaintiffs are those who challenge IEEPA tariffs in a manner and on grounds that substantially overlap with the IEEPA tariffs cases presently before the Supreme Court. In particular, the Court asks whether we view the stipulation as applying to the challenged IEEPA tariffs imposed on Brazil and India that are not at issue in AGS or V.O.S. The answer is yes.29
Given these various stipulations and representations made by the government during the IEEPA tariff litigation, it is highly probable that courts will find that the government is estopped from now claiming that it is not required to refund the unlawful tariffs collected by the administration.
In general, when a tax is determined to be invalid for either constitutional or statutory construction reasons, the courts require that the taxes paid be refunded. They do not require a specific means to achieve that result so long as the means provided is “fair and adequate.”
For example, in United States v. Butler,30 the Supreme Court held unconstitutional various “floor stock taxes” and “processing taxes” imposed by the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. In Anniston Mfg. Co. v. Davis,31 the Court ruled that a “fair and adequate remedy” was required – in this case a refund of the taxes paid but found unconstitutional in Butler – but that an administrative remedy to process the refunds was adequate and did not mandate access to the judicial process provided that “legal rights are still suitably protected.”32 In Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias,33 the Supreme Court held that Hawaii's liquor excise tax scheme – which allowed tax preferences for alcoholic beverages manufactured from certain products grown in the State – violated the Commerce Clause because it had the purpose and effect of discriminating against interstate commerce. In McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco,34 a similar Florida tax scheme was struck down by the trial court under Bacchus Imports. The trial court enjoined future enforcement of the preferential rate reductions but declined to order a refund or any other form of relief for taxes McKesson had already paid. The court's order was stayed pending appeal, and the State continued to collect taxes with the local preferences still in effect. The Florida Supreme Court ultimately affirmed in all respects, ruling that the refusal to order a refund was proper in light of ‘equitable considerations.’ The U.S. Supreme Court required the refund of the unconstitutional tax.
The State may not, as respondents contend, deny McKesson retrospective relief on the theory that the highest tax rate would have been imposed on all distributors had the State known that the tax scheme actually enacted would be declared unconstitutional, such that McKesson would have paid the same tax in any event. Since this approach in fact treats McKesson worse than distributors of the favored local products, it is inconsistent with the requirement of due process … Neither of the ‘equitable considerations’ cited by the State Supreme Court is sufficient to override the constitutional requirement of retrospective relief.35
In United States v. United States Shoe Corp. (decided March 31, 1998),36 the Supreme Court held that a Harbor Maintenance Tax was a tax, not a user fee, and therefore an unconstitutional violation of the Export Clause.37 Five months later on August 28, 1998, the CIT, after “[h]aving considered defendant's and various plaintiffs' proposals for a claims resolution plan and comments on the court's proposed plan to resolve the numerous suits filed with the court to recover unconstitutionally exacted Harbor Maintenance Taxes,” entered an unprecedented “Order Establishing Claims Resolution Procedure” to govern the refund process.38 This eight page order provided a detailed, uniform process for exporters to recover unlawfully imposed export taxes. The order included form exemplars, timetables, processing speeds and requirements for monthly reports from the Customs Service to the court about its progress.39 The process established appears to have worked well.40 Over time, the process was modestly amended by rulemaking by the Customs Service.41 As discussed below, this Order could serve as a template for the CIT with respect to the IEEPA tariffs. The magnitude of the current undertaking, however, is roughly 200 times greater.42
The law generally requires that tariffs have been paid and that all administrative remedies have been exhausted before a lawsuit may be filed at the CIT seeking a tariff refund.43 This is analogous to the more general requirement under the Administrative Procedure Act to exhaust administrative remedies.44 The normal “protest” process for refunding tariffs that were unlawfully or mistakenly imposed is a slow and cumbersome process involving three lengthy U.S. Code sections and 23 different sections of the Code of Federal Regulations.45 It is virtually certain that when faced with the need to resolve approximately three hundred thousand cases involving over $160 billion dollars, it will break down. Delays will be lengthy. The CBP has said as much in recent CIT filings.46 In addition, a slow, complex and expensive process will have a disproportionately adverse effect on small firms both because the associated legal fees and other costs will be a disproportionate share of the generally lower tariffs paid on smaller import transactions and because smaller firms will have more difficulty managing the cash flow problems associated with long delays. The process need not be complex. The factual issue is simply whether firms paid IEEPA tariffs or not. If so, they are entitled to a refund.
The IEEPA tariffs have been paid (in the sense of transferring money to the Treasury by check or electronically) by more than 300,000 ‘importers of record.’47 An importer of record is either the actual importer or one of approximately 11,000 customs brokers.48 Although the tariffs have been paid by importers of record, virtually every American has borne some of the economic burden of the tariffs because the tariffs resulted in price increases paid by consumers (in the case of imported retail goods) and in price increases paid by consumers and producers (in the case of imported manufacturing inputs). They have also resulted in lost jobs, and lower wages. They have caused lost profits or even losses and business failures. They have reduced capital investment and future productive capacity. Some of the burden of the tariffs was also undoubtedly borne by foreign producers selling goods in the U.S. but the administration narrative that almost all of the burden of tariffs is on foreigners is simply false.49 Both because of administrative complexity, cost and fundamental issues related to lack of information, it will never be possible to untangle all of this in a fully fair manner that accurately recompenses those who bore the actual economic burden of the tariffs by paying higher prices, earning lower wages, or losing their job or business.
But policymakers may not be satisfied with a result where importers, having long since sold the imported goods, usually at higher prices reflecting the payment of the tariffs, receive a windfall. Such a windfall would accrue to the benefit of the importers who imported directly or retained a customs broker.
Under the ordinary principles of the law of agency,50 customs brokers will presumably be required to return tariffs received from the government to their clients. It may be advisable for the CIT or Congress to clarify this issue and require customs brokers to do so to avoid litigation. Some significant number of the client-importers will have gone out of business and wound up their affairs, so even this raises issues.51 In the absence of legal clarity or requirements, importers will, of course, choose to do different things with their refunds. Some firms will keep the money, so the payment will benefit the owners of the importer. Some will forward some or all of the refund to the firm’s customers who paid higher prices. Some will use it to reduce prices on future sales. Some firms may provide some or all of the refund to their workforce, as US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer has called for.52 Which of these responses is the most appropriate remedy to the illegally imposed tariffs is case dependent. Some firms raised prices to fully reflect the imposition of the tariffs. Some absorbed some of the tariffs. In the latter case, a full refund of the tariffs would overcompensate the buyers.
The courts, the Executive Branch, and the Congress all can and should take steps to expeditiously resolve the situation and to establish a streamlined process for making the IEEPA tariff refunds.
On February 24, 2026, the V.O.S. Selections plaintiffs filed a motion in the Federal Circuit seeking an immediate mandate requiring that refunds be issued.53 On February 27, 2026, the government replied and sought to stay the mandate.54 Similar motions were filed in the CIT. On March 2, 2026, the Federal Circuit issued a mandate effectively remanding the case to the CIT to oversee the refund process.55 On March 4, 2026, CIT Judge Richard K. Eaton, entered an order in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. U.S. requiring that all of the IEEPA tariffs be refunded and wrote that the “Chief Judge has indicated that I am the only judge who will hear cases pertaining to the refund of IEEPA duties.”56 This presumably means that the CIT is contemplating a case consolidation/master case process similar to the HMT refund process described above or the section 301 cases,57 a process it has used in the past. It should do so in the IEEPA refund cases.
The March 4th Order has been suspended, most recently on March 12th, as a result of various CBP affidavits filed with the CIT. The March 12th order reads in relevant part:
Upon consideration of the Declaration of Brandon Lord, Executive Director, Trade Programs Directorate, Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”), dated March 12, 2026 (ECF No. 39), which confirms that Customs is making satisfactory progress to timely complete the development of a process to issue refunds of International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) duties paid, with interest; and taking note of Mr. Lord’s Declaration of March 6, 2026 (ECF No. 31), in particular paragraph 22, which indicates that the process of issuing refunds can be expedited to those importers who take the necessary steps to receive refunds electronically…the suspension of the amended Order dated March 5, 2026 (ECF No. 29), as ordered by the court on March 6, 2026 (ECF No. 33), is continued; and it is further ORDERED that Defendant shall file, by 2:00 p.m. EDT on Thursday, March 19, 2026, a short report describing the progress Customs has made toward the development of a process to issue refunds of IEEPA duties paid with interest.58
On March 27, 2026 the CIT ordered the CBP to refund the IEEPA tariffs:
“ORDERED that, with respect to any and all unliquidated entries that were entered subject to IEEPA duties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection is hereby directed to liquidate those entries without regard to the IEEPA duties. Any liquidated entries for which liquidation is not final shall be reliquidated without regard to those duties. Any liquidated entries for which liquidation is final shall be reliquidated without regard to the IEEPA duties. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this order addresses issues concerning duty free de minimis treatment under 19 U.S.C. § 1321 that are otherwise before this Court. See Axle of Dearborn, Inc. v. Department of Commerce et al. (1:25-cv-00091-3JP).”59
As discussed above, virtually every American has borne some economic burden because of the IEEPA tariffs. The scope of losses goes far beyond just the importers of record that are litigating in the CIT and seeking a refund from the CBP.
It was virtually inevitable that once the Supreme Court ruled the tariffs to be unlawful, and refunds started to be made, that enterprising lawyers representing those other than importers of record would seek recompense by filing lawsuits and seeking to certify a class harmed by the tariffs. Such complaint was filed on March 11 in Illinois by Matthew Stockov against Costco.60 Class action lawsuits have also been filed against FedEx, UPS, Lululemon and other firms.61 The proposed class in the lawsuit is “All persons in the United States that purchased, from any Costco retail channel, any good subject to the tariffs imposed under IEEPA, during the period February 1, 2025 through February 24, 2026.” The plaintiff’s legal theories include that Costco violated numerous consumer fraud and unfair and deceptive trade statutes and unjust enrichment.62 It is virtually certain that many other lawsuits against other importers of record will follow.
Costco is an unusual retailer because it requires shoppers to present a membership card at check-out and therefore knows who purchased what items. Although it would be a massive administrative undertaking, in principle Costco could calculate the tariffs paid on each item sold (provided Costco was the direct importer), assess whether or not it raised prices on those items for the full amount of the tariff,63 determine which customers bought those items and return the amount of tariffs that were passed through to customers.
Relatively few retailers could possibly do that. Most do not even know the identity of many of their customers. Cash payments accounted for 14 percent of all payments. People in households earning less than $25,000 per year used cash for 24 percent of payments.64 Credit cards, debit cards and mobile phone apps accounted for most of the remaining retail transactions. While the retailer may have access to the name and credit or debit card information of their customers, it is not clear that they could gain access to sufficient customer information to make an accurate tariff refund without information sharing from the banks and technology companies that provide these payment methods. They may or may not have access to information about tariffs paid on particular items. They may or may not be able to crosswalk between customer payment information and specific items purchased. In many cases the retailer would simply be unable to accurate determine what refund is “due.” And even in cases where they can, the administrative cost of doing so may well approach or exceed the amount of tariff paid.
The class action lawsuits raise the possibility that an importer may effectively be punished for choosing to rapidly refund the tariffs to ultimate consumers or workers. They may do so and then the class action lawsuit judgment may require them to refund the tariffs again to a different set of people. Unless Congress steps in, firms may be reluctant to rapidly refund the tariff money until the legal situation clarifies.
Brandon Lord, Executive Director, Trade Programs Directorate, Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) stated in a March 6th CIT filing that:
The current system requires refunds be certified for accuracy by personnel from both CBP’s Office of Field Operations and Office of Finance, separately, before submission to the Department of the Treasury for issuance. Assuming each Entry Summary with IEEPA tariffs is entitled to a refund, then 53,173,939 refunds would need to go through this process. There is no workaround in ACE that would allow this process to be circumvented.65
ACE is the Automated Commercial Environment system used by CBP.
And as discussed above, the current protest system is complex.
In January, CBP published an interim final rule stating that effective February 6, 2026, CBP will issue all refunds electronically.66 So far, this has been less than a rousing success. Brandon Lord stated in a March 6th CIT filing that:
There are 330,566 importers who have paid IEEPA duties or duty deposits. While CBP has issued numerous communications regarding the new rule, only 21,423 entities (mostly importers or their customs brokers) have completed the set-up process to receive their refunds electronically.67
The CBP must do better. CBP should implement a much simpler system for refunding the unlawful tariffs than the current protest system. CBP should promulgate an interim final rule as quickly as possible and then seek public comment for a 60-day period before a potentially revised final rule is promulgated. Such a system should make use of the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system and prepopulate as many fields in the system with data already held by CBP as possible. It should require only that the importer of record provide information that has not already been provided to CBP. It should require that the importer of record establish only five things: (1) the importer’s identifying contact information, (2) the importer’s payment information (i.e. how the refund should be paid to the importer), (3) the date and (4) amount of IEEPA tariffs paid, if liquidated, or the date and amount of deposit paid, if not liquidated and (5) the minimum information required to accurately identify the underlying importation transaction.
There is reason to believe that CBP, on its own initiative, is doing something along these lines. On March 12, in a court filing CBP said:
CBP is developing a new capability within its system of record for imported merchandise — the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) — to prepare to calculate and provide valid refunds of additional ad valorem duties imposed under IEEPA. This new ACE functionality is called the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE). CBP is designing CAPE with four integrated components:
- Claim Portal,
- Mass Processing,
- Review and Liquidation/Reliquidation, and
- Refund
These components reflect both how CBP anticipates refund requests will proceed through CAPE and how CBP is structuring its development efforts. Each of these components, along with an update on its development, is discussed below.68
The CAPE Claim Portal will be web-based and serve as the entry point for importers and brokers to submit IEEPA refund requests (“CAPE Declaration”) to CBP. Once operational, a new tab will be available in both importer and broker ACE Portal accounts. 69
On March 11, 2026, CBP estimated that its development of the Claim Portal component was 70 percent complete.70 CBP estimated that its development of the Mass Processing component was 40 percent complete.71 CBP estimated that its development of the Review and Liquidation/Reliquidation component was 80 percent complete.72 CBP estimated that its development of the Refund component was 60 percent complete.73 On March 19, CBP revised its estimates: Claims Portal (73 percent complete – +3), Mass Processing (45 percent complete – +5), Review and Liquidation/Reliquidation (80 percent complete – no change) and Refund (63 percent complete – +3).74
Congress should enact legislation that does at least eight things. Congress should:
Congress should also consider appropriating additional resources to CBP to hire temporary personnel to process the refunds. CBP, making the heroic assumption that it can process refunds in five minutes, estimates that it will take 4,431,161 man hours to process the refunds.75 This is the equivalent of about 2,300 full-time employees for a year (assuming 1900 hours annually per employee). It will take longer and involve more people because it is unrealistic to expect an average processing time of five minutes.
The Tariff Refund Act of 2026 (S. 3905), introduced by Sen. Wyden [D-OR] and currently having 26 cosponsors, is constructive but incomplete.76 It should be amended to address the other issues that need to be addressed.
The bill would require that refunds be made, with interest, within 180 days, which is unrealistic given the number of refunds that must be processed and current CBP staffing and funding levels. It would require CBP, to the extent practicable, to prioritize the payment of refunds to small business concerns. It would require reliquidation of liquidated entries at the rate of duty applicable to the article in the absence of any duty imposed under IEEPA.
The bill states that it the sense of Congress that “(3) importers, wholesalers, and larger businesses, especially those that raised prices or passed on direct costs from those unlawful duties while they were in place, should pass on the refunds to their customers, including small businesses and families impacted by those duties” but provides no mechanism or explanation of how that can or should be done and provides no safe harbors for good faith compliance. It does not address the simplification of the refund process, the preemption of potential state laws governing the disposition of refunds, the critical class action lawsuit issue or the clarification of customs brokers’ fiduciary duty.
The Restoring Economic Lifelines for Independent Enterprises and Family Businesses (RELIEF) Act (H.R. 7736), introduced by Rep. Horsford (D-NV) with 49 current cosponsors, would require CBP to liquidate or reliquidate all entries and provide a refund within 90 days.77 Given the magnitude of the problem, a 90-day timeline is unrealistic. It does not address any of the other issues that Congress should address.
The Tariff Relief for Consumers Act (H.R. 7822),78 introduced by Rep DeLauro [D-CT] on March 5, 2026 with two current cosponsors, would require that the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the CBP, to promulgate a regulation within 30 days that establishes a process whereby “covered importers” set forth a process to “lower the prices paid by their customers for goods formerly subject to such tariffs, in full proportion to the refund applied to be received with respect to such goods.” The importer would be required “to demonstrate, to the extent practicable —
(A) that such reductions in prices are targeted towards essential consumer goods; (B) to the extent that the covered importer does not trade in essential consumer goods, that the covered importer has implemented other means by which prior customers of the importer can receive rebates or refunds on prospective purchases commensurate with the amount refunded.”
Undertaking such a complex regulatory project without any public comment within 30 days is both unrealistic and unwise.
The bill would prohibit importers from conducting stock buybacks or distributing dividends unless the covered importer certifies to the Secretary of the Treasury that the covered importer has completed the steps to lower prices for consumers as required by the new regulation. This is an unwise intrusion on corporate governance in the name of trade policy that could have a substantial adverse impact on stock values. The bill would require CBP to make all refunds within 180 days, which is unrealistic given the magnitude of the problem and the complexity of the process that the bill would establish.
The term “covered importer” would mean an entity that “paid $5,000,000 or more in tariffs or other duties.” The term “essential consumer goods” would be defined to mean a list of specific consumer goods.79 The bill does not address the preemption of potential state laws governing the disposition of refunds, the critical class action lawsuit issue or the clarification of customs brokers’ fiduciary duty.
The Payback Act (H.R. 7646) introduced by Rep. Crockett [D-TX] and currently having no cosponsors80 would require the Secretary of the Treasury within 120 days to “develop and publish a formula to calculate refunds to American consumers for amounts paid that were attributable to covered [IEEPA] tariffs” and to (1) quantify total consumer cost increases tied to covered tariffs using data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and other relevant Federal datasets; (2) estimate pass-through effects from importers, distributors, and retailers to end consumers; and (3) incorporate equitable adjustments based on household income and geographic disparities.” It would, to the maximum extent practicable, require that the refunds be issued automatically using existing Treasury and Internal Revenue Service payment systems, including direct deposit or refundable tax credits and require “for individuals not captured through existing systems,’ that the Secretary establish “a streamlined application process requiring minimal documentation.”
This bill is notable in two respects. First, it appears to be the only bill that would require that the refunds go to consumers rather than importers. Second, it basically does not address any of the actual issues about how that would be done. It does not address, for example, where the money would come from. It does not address the fact that refunds will go to importers of record not consumers in the absence of legislation much clearer and more detailed than this bill. It does not address how the rebate would be determined but instead leaves that to the Treasury Secretary. It does not address the question of how the Treasury Department and CBP would coordinate.
Congress should enact legislation that:
Congress should also consider appropriating additional resources to CBP to hire temporary personnel to process the refunds. CBP should implement a much simpler system for refunding the unlawful tariffs than the current protest system. CBP should promulgate an interim final rule as quickly as possible and then seek public comment for a 60 day period before a potentially revised final rule is promulgated. Such a system should make use of the ACE system and prepopulate as many fields in the system with data already held by CBP as possible. It should require only that the importer of record provide information that has not already been provided to CBP. It should require that the importer of record need establish only five things: (1) the importer’s identifying contact information, (2) the importer’s payment information (i.e. how the refund should be paid to the importer), (3) the date and (4) amount of IEEPA tariffs paid, if liquidated, or the date and amount of deposit paid, if not liquidated and (5) the minimum information required to accurately identify the underlying importation transaction.
Based on filings with the CIT on March 12th and March 19th, the CBP appears to be building a new system within ACE called the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) that would establish a system along these lines.
The CIT should use a case consolidation/master case process similar to those used for HMT refunds or the section 301 cases.