Tariff Refunds in the US 2026
2026 is the most consequential year for US tariff refunds in modern trade history. On February 20, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark 6–3 ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. That single decision opened the door to what is arguably the largest government duty refund process ever attempted in America — covering an estimated $130–$175+ billion in tariffs collected from US importers between April 2025 and February 2026 under President Trump’s sweeping “Liberation Day” tariff program. Within days of the ruling, President Trump signed an executive order revoking the IEEPA tariff orders, and the Court of International Trade (CIT) began issuing directives requiring US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to process refunds. Thousands of businesses — from small manufacturers to Fortune 500 retailers — now stand to recover duties paid, in many cases with statutory interest, through a brand-new electronic refund system that launched on April 20, 2026.
Alongside this historic IEEPA refund program, the US duty drawback program — a long-standing mechanism under 19 U.S.C. § 1313 that allows companies to recover up to 99% of duties on imported goods that are later exported or destroyed — has been experiencing its own explosive growth. Annual duty drawback claims grew from approximately $838 million in 2017 to an estimated $3.9 billion by 2023, and the pace has only accelerated in 2025 and 2026 as the cumulative burden of Section 301 (China), Section 232 (steel, aluminum, autos), and the now-invalidated IEEPA tariffs pushed importers and exporters to aggressively pursue every available recovery mechanism. Understanding both the IEEPA refund process and the traditional drawback program — their timelines, eligibility rules, dollar scales, and procedural requirements — is now essential knowledge for any US importer operating in 2026. This article compiles every verified, publicly confirmed statistic and fact on the subject, drawn directly from official CBP guidance, Supreme Court filings, Congressional Research Service analysis, and leading trade policy institutions.
Interesting Facts About Tariff Refunds in the US 2026
| Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court Ruling Date | February 20, 2026 — Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (6–3 decision) |
| Supreme Court Finding | IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs |
| Ruling Authorship | Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, Jackson |
| Dissenting Justices | Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Alito |
| Total IEEPA Tariffs Collected (through Dec 2025) | Approximately $133.5 billion (CBP Trade Statistics) |
| Total IEEPA Tariffs Collected (through Feb 20, 2026) | Estimated $160–$175+ billion (Tax Foundation; Penn-Wharton Budget Model: $175–$179B) |
| Official CBP Refund Portal Name | CAPE — Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries |
| CAPE Portal Launch Date | April 20, 2026 at 8:00 AM EDT |
| CAPE Platform Location | CBP’s ACE Secure Data Portal (Automated Commercial Environment) |
| CAPE Phase 1 Eligible Entries | Unliquidated entries + entries within 80 days of liquidation |
| CAPE Refund Processing Timeframe | Generally 60–90 days after CAPE Declaration acceptance |
| CBP Internal Processing Target | 45 days after accepting a CAPE Declaration (per CBP March 31, 2026 declaration) |
| Refund Payment Method | Electronic ACH only — paper checks eliminated as of February 6, 2026 |
| Who Can File CAPE Declarations | Importer of Record (IOR) or their licensed customs broker |
| Max Entries Per CAPE Declaration (CSV) | 9,999 entries per single CAPE Declaration CSV file |
| CIT Lawsuit Requirement for Phase 1 | Not required — CIT confirmed April 14, 2026 that CAPE is open to all eligible importers |
| IEEPA Tariffs Projected 10-Year Revenue (now voided) | Estimated $1.4 trillion (Tax Foundation) |
| Traditional Duty Drawback Refund Rate | Up to 99% of duties, taxes, and fees paid (19 U.S.C. § 1313) |
| Drawback Annual Claims in 2017 | ~$838 million |
| Drawback Annual Claims in 2023 | Estimated ~$3.9 billion — +26% annual growth rate post-TFTEA |
| Drawback Claim Growth (2019–2023) | Over +20% (CBP data) |
| IEEPA Tariff Rate — Liberation Day Baseline | 10% on imports from virtually all US trading partners (effective April 5, 2025) |
| Section 301 China Tariffs | 25–100% (product-specific) — remain in effect, not part of SCOTUS ruling |
| Section 232 Steel/Aluminum Tariffs | 50% steel, 50% aluminum — remain in effect |
| Section 122 Replacement Tariff | 10% global tariff (effective Feb 24, 2026) — not subject to IEEPA ruling |
| Downstream Consumer Lawsuits | Already being filed against importers who passed IEEPA costs to customers |
Sources: US CBP — IEEPA Duty Refunds official page (cbp.gov, accessed April 22, 2026); US Supreme Court — Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (February 20, 2026); Congress.gov / CRS — LSB11398 (February 23, 2026); Tax Foundation — “Supreme Court Trump Tariffs Ruling: Analysis” (February 25, 2026)
The facts table above captures two overlapping but distinct realities shaping US tariff refunds in 2026. The first is the historic IEEPA refund event — a court-ordered, government-administered mass refund of duties that the Supreme Court ruled were illegally collected. The second is the steady, structural growth of the traditional duty drawback program, which has been quietly growing at 26% annually since Congress modernized it through the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act (TFTEA) in 2018. Together, these two channels represent an enormous recovery opportunity for US importers, though the mechanics, timelines, and eligibility rules are entirely different. The IEEPA refund through CAPE is a court-ordered administrative process with specific technical filing requirements; drawback is a statutory refund right requiring careful supply-chain documentation and filing within prescribed deadlines. Both require precision, both move at institutional pace, and both have been chronically underutilized by US importers who lack in-house trade expertise.
The scale of the IEEPA refund deserves particular emphasis because it is genuinely unprecedented. The Penn-Wharton Budget Model’s estimate of $175–$179 billion in collected IEEPA duties — a figure that the researchers note exceeds the combined fiscal 2025 spending of the Department of Transportation and the Department of Justice — represents the size of the potential government liability to US importers. The Tax Foundation’s separate estimate puts the total through February 20, 2026 at over $160 billion, while the CBP’s own trade statistics reported $133.5 billion through December 2025. The gap between these figures reflects the continued collection of IEEPA duties through February 2026 after the ruling and before the executive order formally halting collection took effect. Whatever the final audited figure, the consensus among trade analysts is that this is a refund obligation measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars — a fiscal challenge to the US government unlike anything CBP has ever been asked to administer.
IEEPA Tariff Background & Supreme Court Ruling Statistics 2026
| IEEPA Background Metric | Detail |
|---|---|
| IEEPA Tariff Program Name | “Liberation Day” Reciprocal Tariffs + Fentanyl/Immigration Tariffs |
| Liberation Day Date | April 2, 2025 — Presidential proclamation |
| Reciprocal Tariffs Effective Date | April 5, 2025 |
| Baseline Tariff Applied | 10% on imports from virtually all US trading partners |
| Higher Country-Specific IEEPA Rates (examples) | Vietnam 46%; Thailand 36%; Taiwan 32%; South Korea 25%; EU 20%; China 10% reciprocal + 10% fentanyl |
| IEEPA Fentanyl/Immigration Tariffs | Applied to China, Canada, Mexico under separate IEEPA emergency declarations |
| Period IEEPA Tariffs Collected | April 2025 – February 2026 (~10 months) |
| IEEPA Tariff Impact on Effective US Tariff Rate | Raised applied rate by +7 percentage points; effective rate by nearly +5 percentage points (Tax Foundation) |
| Average Household Cost in 2025 | Approximately $1,000 per US household (Tax Foundation) |
| Average Household Cost in 2026 (projected if upheld) | Approximately $1,300 per US household (Tax Foundation) |
| Projected 10-Year Revenue if Upheld | Estimated $1.4 trillion (Tax Foundation) — now voided |
| Court That First Ruled Against Tariffs | US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — August 2025 |
| Supreme Court Case Names | Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. |
| Supreme Court Vote | 6–3 to strike down |
| SCOTUS Legal Basis | IEEPA’s “regulate importation” language does not authorize tariffs; congressional authority required |
| Presidential Response to Ruling | Executive Order revoking IEEPA tariff orders; replaced with Section 122 10% global tariff (Feb 24, 2026) |
| Businesses Filing for Refunds Before Ruling | More than 1,000 businesses had already filed for refunds before February 20, 2026 |
| Tariffs NOT Affected by Ruling | Section 232 (steel, aluminum, autos), Section 301 (China), Section 122 |
Sources: US Supreme Court — Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (February 20, 2026); Ropes & Gray — “Supreme Court Strikes Down IEEPA Tariffs” (February 23, 2026); WilmerHale — “Supreme Court Strikes Down IEEPA Tariffs — What Now?” (February 21, 2026); Tax Foundation — “Supreme Court Trump Tariffs Ruling: Analysis” (February 25, 2026)
The legal architecture of the IEEPA tariff program — and its invalidation — is essential context for every importer trying to understand their refund rights. The tariffs were imposed under the President’s declared authority to respond to national emergencies under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, using trade deficits and fentanyl trafficking as the triggering emergencies. From April 2, 2025 (“Liberation Day”), a 10% baseline tariff was applied to imports from virtually every US trading partner, with significantly higher country-specific rates stacked on top. Vietnam faced a 46% rate, Thailand 36%, Taiwan 32%, South Korea 25%, and the European Union 20%. China faced both the 10% reciprocal tariff and an additional 10% fentanyl-related surcharge. These rates were in addition to pre-existing tariffs — meaning that on many Chinese goods already subject to Section 301 rates of 25–100%, the effective total tariff rate was punishing for importers. The Supreme Court’s ruling addressed specifically the IEEPA authority layer. Section 301, Section 232, and the new Section 122 tariffs remain fully in force.
The 6–3 Supreme Court ruling was not a close call on the constitutional reasoning — the majority was emphatic that IEEPA’s text contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that the President cannot derive tariff authority from a statute that doesn’t explicitly grant it. Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion applied the constitutional principle that the power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” belongs to Congress, not the executive branch, and that authority of significant economic and political magnitude requires explicit statutory delegation that IEEPA simply doesn’t provide. The three dissenting justices — Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Alito — would have upheld the tariffs, with Justice Kavanaugh notably acknowledging in his dissent that the ruling would require the US to “refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others.” That observation has proven prophetic: consumer and downstream purchaser lawsuits against importers who passed IEEPA costs through supply chains were already being filed within days of the ruling.
CAPE Tariff Refund Process & Timeline Statistics 2026
| CAPE Process Metric | Detail |
|---|---|
| CAPE Full Name | Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries |
| CAPE Portal Launch | April 20, 2026 at 8:00 AM EDT |
| Portal Location | CBP’s ACE Secure Data Portal (Automated Commercial Environment) |
| CBP CSMS Reference | CSMS #68315804 (April 10, 2026) |
| Introduced via | CBP declaration to CIT on March 12, 2026 |
| Filing Format | CSV file (“CAPE Declaration”) uploaded via ACE Portal |
| CAPE Tab Availability | Importer, Organizational Broker, and Filer sub-accounts in ACE |
| Phase 1 Eligible Entry Types | (1) Unliquidated entries; (2) entries within 80 days of liquidation |
| 80-Day Window Legal Basis | Reflects the 90-day voluntary reliquidation period under 19 USC 1501, minus 10-day processing buffer |
| Entries Per Declaration (cap) | 9,999 entries per CSV file (multiple declarations allowed) |
| Who Can File | IOR (Importer of Record) or licensed customs broker only — no amendments once accepted |
| CIT Lawsuit Required? | No — CIT April 14, 2026 order confirmed CAPE open to all importers |
| ACE Processing Workflow | Strips IEEPA Chapter 99 HTS codes → recalculates duties → routes overpayment to ACE collections module |
| Refund Consolidation Method | Consolidated by IOR (or Form 4811 designee) + liquidation date — NOT entry-by-entry |
| Standard Refund Timeline | 60–90 days after CAPE Declaration acceptance (per CBP FAQ) |
| CBP Internal Target Timeline | 45 days after CAPE Declaration acceptance (per CBP March 31, 2026 court declaration) |
| Refund Includes Interest? | Yes — statutory interest from original entry date |
| Payment Method | ACH electronic transfer only — paper checks abolished February 6, 2026 |
| ACH Setup Requirement | ACH / ACE bank account must be enrolled before CAPE Declaration submission |
| Phase 1 Items Excluded | Reconciliation entries, drawback claims, historically liquidated entries outside 80-day window |
| Phase 2+ Timeline | Additional phases planned but no confirmed dates announced as of April 22, 2026 |
| CIT Progress Report Deadline | CBP ordered to file Phase 1 progress report with CIT on April 28, 2026 |
| Post Summary Corrections | No longer accepted for IEEPA refund requests — CAPE is the exclusive mechanism |
Sources: US CBP — IEEPA Duty Refunds official page (cbp.gov, accessed April 22, 2026); CBP CSMS #68315804 (April 10, 2026); Norton Rose Fulbright — CBP Issues Tariff Refund Instructions (April 22, 2026); Bradley LLP — “IEEPA Update: Phase I Refunds Available Now” (April 20, 2026)
The CAPE process is fundamentally different from any tariff refund mechanism that most US importers have encountered before, and the distinctions matter enormously for anyone trying to get paid. Traditional CBP refund pathways — protests filed entry-by-entry, post-summary corrections, or drawback claims — are individual, labor-intensive processes where each entry is tracked and documented separately. CAPE was designed explicitly to handle mass consolidation: a single CSV file containing up to 9,999 entry numbers is submitted, CBP runs automated validation, strips the IEEPA-specific Harmonized Tariff Schedule Chapter 99 codes, recalculates duties at non-IEEPA rates, and routes the overpayment into a consolidated refund batch. This is a systems-level processing approach rather than a case-by-case administrative review, which is why CBP described it in March 2026 as representing a “significant operational improvement over traditional processing methods.” The speed of the 60–90 day processing window — compared to traditional protest and litigation timelines that can span years — reflects that design intent, though compliance concerns on specific entries can extend that window.
Two timing realities dominate how importers should approach CAPE in 2026. First, the 80-day post-liquidation window for Phase 1 creates a hard deadline structure that varies by entry. An entry liquidated on February 15, 2026 must be submitted to CAPE before approximately May 6, 2026 to fall within the Phase 1 window — meaning importers with recently liquidated entries face urgency that does not apply to unliquidated entries. Second, Phase 2 and later phases — which will cover reconciliation entries, drawback claims, historically liquidated entries, and other complex fact patterns — have no confirmed launch dates as of April 22, 2026, leaving importers with large volumes of older liquidated entries in a holding pattern. The CIT’s April 28, 2026 deadline for CBP to file a Phase 1 progress report signals that the court is actively monitoring implementation, creating institutional pressure on CBP to demonstrate that the refund process is actually functioning at the scale the ruling demands.
US Duty Drawback Program Statistics 2026
| Duty Drawback Metric | Value / Detail |
|---|---|
| Governing Statute | 19 U.S.C. § 1313 — part of the Tariff Act of 1930 |
| Administering Agency | US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) under Treasury |
| Maximum Refund Percentage | Up to 99% of duties, taxes, and fees paid on imported goods |
| Program History | Over 200 years old — one of the oldest provisions in US trade law |
| Filing Requirement | All claims must be filed electronically through the ACE Portal (since TFTEA modernization) |
| TFTEA Modernization Effective | Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act (TFTEA) — modernized drawback regulations |
| Annual Claims Before TFTEA | Average ~$800 million/year with 2.5% annual growth |
| Annual Claims in 2017 | ~$838 million |
| Annual Claims in 2023 | Estimated ~$3.9 billion |
| Annual Growth Rate Post-TFTEA | ~26% per year (CBP data via C.H. Robinson, 2025) |
| Claim Volume Growth (2019–2023) | Over +20% (CBP data) |
| Number of CBP-Recognized Drawback Types | 14 specific drawback types under 19 U.S.C. § 1313 |
| 3 Most Common Types | Manufacturing Substitution; Unused Direct Identification; Unused Substitution |
| Filing Deadline — Unused Merchandise | 3 years from date of importation (export/destroy within this window) |
| Filing Deadline — Direct Identification | 5 years between import date and export/destruction date |
| Section 301 Tariff Drawback Eligibility | Yes — Section 301 China tariffs are drawback-eligible |
| Section 232 Tariff Drawback Eligibility | No — steel/aluminum Section 232 tariffs are not drawback-eligible |
| IEEPA Tariffs Drawback Status | Moot for Phase 1 refund-eligible entries (CAPE refunds apply); complex entries deferred to later phases |
| Average Recovery — Mid-Sized US Companies | Varies significantly by industry and import/export volumes |
| CBP Annual Drawback Processing | Hundreds of millions of dollars processed annually |
| Most Active Drawback Sectors | Chemicals, electronics, apparel; expanding to e-commerce, food & beverage, renewable energy |
Sources: 19 U.S.C. § 1313 (statutory authority); CBP — Chapter 7, Duty Drawback official guidance; C.H. Robinson — “US Duty Drawback Essentials” (August 2025, citing CBP data); JM Rodgers — “Duty Drawback Trends & Statistics 2025” (March 2026); Wikipedia — Duty Drawback
The duty drawback program’s growth trajectory tells the story of how US importers have responded to more than eight years of escalating tariff burdens. Before the TFTEA modernization took effect, the program was growing at a modest 2.5% annually, with most activity concentrated in the chemical, electronics, and apparel industries that had used it for decades. The 2018 imposition of Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods — bringing rates of 25% and higher on thousands of product categories — changed the economics of drawback overnight for manufacturers and distributors who were importing from China and exporting finished products. Suddenly, recovering 99 cents on every dollar of duty paid on goods that ultimately left the US became a strategic imperative rather than an administrative afterthought. The $3.9 billion in annual drawback claims estimated for 2023 — compared to $838 million in 2017 — reflects a genuine, sustained behavioral shift by US importers toward systematic duty recovery. That growth was driven almost entirely by the tariff environment, not by changes in trade volumes.
What the statistics also reveal is the scale of unclaimed drawback opportunity. CBP has consistently estimated that a significant portion of eligible drawback funds goes unclaimed each year, as importers lack the in-house customs expertise or the documentation discipline to file properly. The 3-year filing window for unused merchandise drawback and the 5-year window for direct identification claims mean that the window is not immediately foreclosed — but documentation requirements are strict, and entries for which records are lost or incomplete cannot be recovered. The 14 recognized drawback types under Section 1313 mean that there are multiple pathways to recovery for different supply chain configurations, and the program’s expansion into e-commerce exporters, food and beverage producers, and renewable energy component suppliers since 2023 indicates that awareness is growing beyond the traditional industrial sectors. For 2026 specifically, the intersection of the IEEPA refund process and the traditional drawback program — and the fact that Phase 2 CAPE is intended to address drawback claims involving IEEPA duties — means importers need to carefully analyze which mechanism applies to which entries.
IEEPA Tariff Refund Eligibility & Exclusions Statistics 2026
| Eligibility / Exclusion Metric | Detail |
|---|---|
| Tariffs Eligible for CAPE Refund | All IEEPA-authority duties: Reciprocal tariffs (effective April 5, 2025) + country-specific rates + Fentanyl/Immigration tariffs |
| IEEPA HTS Codes Covered | Codes beginning 9903.01 (Trafficking/Fentanyl) and 9903.02 (Reciprocal tariffs) |
| Interest Included in Refund? | Yes — statutory interest from the original entry date |
| Phase 1 Covered Entries | Unliquidated entries + entries within 80 days of liquidation as of April 20, 2026 |
| Phase 1 Excluded (deferred to later phases) | Reconciliation entries; drawback claims; historically liquidated entries (>80 days post-liquidation) |
| Section 232 Steel Tariffs (50%) | NOT refundable — not part of SCOTUS ruling; remain in effect |
| Section 232 Aluminum Tariffs (50%) | NOT refundable — remain in effect |
| Section 232 Automobile Tariffs (25%) | NOT refundable — remain in effect |
| Section 232 Copper Tariffs (50%) | NOT refundable — remain in effect |
| Section 232 Semiconductor Tariffs (25%) | NOT refundable — remain in effect |
| Section 232 Lumber Tariffs (10%) | NOT refundable — remain in effect |
| Section 301 China Tariffs (25–100%) | NOT refundable — imposed under Trade Act authority; remain in effect |
| Section 122 Global Tariff (10%, from Feb 24, 2026) | NOT refundable — different legal authority; separate from IEEPA ruling |
| Downstream Consumer Refund Claims | Courts are already receiving lawsuits from consumers against importers who passed IEEPA costs through |
| Importer Who Passed Costs Through — Obligation | Legally still the Importer of Record — entitled to IEEPA refund regardless of pass-through arrangements |
| Anti-Dumping / Countervailing Duties | Not affected by IEEPA ruling — separate statutory authority |
| Protest Deadline for Liquidated Entries | 180 days after liquidation (standard CBP protest deadline) |
| Administration Appeal Risk | Administration has signaled it will aggressively contest certain refunds |
Sources: US CBP — IEEPA Duty Refunds official page (cbp.gov); TariffsTool.com — “IEEPA Tariff Refund — How to Claim 2026” (April 20, 2026); Snell & Wilmer — CAPE Goes Live (April 21, 2026)
Understanding what is and is not refundable under the current tariff landscape is arguably the most commercially critical piece of information for any US importer in 2026. The temptation to assume that the Supreme Court’s ruling resolved all tariff concerns would be a costly mistake. The ruling was narrowly targeted at IEEPA authority — the legal basis the Trump administration used for the “Liberation Day” reciprocal tariffs and the fentanyl-related country tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico. It did not touch, challenge, or undermine any other tariff authority. Section 232 tariffs — the national security-based duties on steel (50%), aluminum (50%), automobiles (25%), copper (50%), semiconductors (25%), and lumber (10%) — remain fully in force and are specifically excluded from CBP’s CAPE refund process. Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods, which carry rates from 25% up to 100% on specific product categories and were the first major layer of the US-China trade conflict dating back to 2018, also remain completely unaffected. For importers who source heavily from China, the IEEPA refund is meaningful but the underlying 25%+ Section 301 burden on Chinese goods persists.
The downstream litigation risk is one of the most complex dimensions of the 2026 refund landscape. Justice Kavanaugh flagged this directly in his dissent: when importers pass tariff costs through to customers — either via price increases or contractual tariff surcharge provisions — the legal question of who is entitled to the government refund becomes contested. The importer of record is legally the party that paid the duties to CBP and is therefore the party entitled to file CAPE claims — regardless of what commercial arrangements exist downstream. But consumer class actions and business-to-business lawsuits alleging unjust enrichment are already being filed against importers who collected IEEPA surcharges from their customers and then receive government refunds of those same duties. Importers who received IEEPA refunds through CAPE should carefully review the contractual language of any tariff pass-through clauses in their sales agreements, because those contracts may obligate them to return some or all of their government refund to downstream customers.
Disclaimer: The data research report we present here is based on information found from various sources. We are not liable for any financial loss, errors, or damages of any kind that may result from the use of the information herein. We acknowledge that though we try to report accurately, we cannot verify the absolute facts of everything that has been represented.
