US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is denying companies' bids for refunds of International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs that the Supreme Court ruled illegal a month ago. This was reported by the Financial Times, citing sources familiar with the situation.
After the court decision, companies began en masse to file so-called Post Summary Corrections - amendments to customs records that allow them to exclude IEEPA tariff codes and receive overpayments back. However, CBP is denying these claims and is also suspending claims on already closed records. Trade lawyers find themselves in legal limbo with the refund mechanism still unclear.
The administration is seeking to keep about $150 billion collected from the disputed tariffs. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned that payments “could take weeks, months, years.” National Economic Council Director Kevin Hasett told CNBC that "private players will figure out how refunds should work," advising small businesses to "watch the big companies litigate."
Meanwhile, the International Trade Court took a first step toward importers: Judge Richard Eaton ordered CBP not to include IEEPA tariffs in its final payment calculations, opening a potential path to compensation. The White House intends to appeal this decision. CBP in court called a complete review of the records a task of "unprecedented magnitude," noting the lack of necessary technical tools. A number of lawyers disagree with this: according to them, duty refund procedures exist and operate as normal.
More than 300,000 importers have filed approximately 34 million records subject to IEEPA duties—about 19.2 million of which remain outstanding. Among the big casualties is the supermarket chain Costco, which filed a lawsuit against the government last year: its CEO Ron Vachris said that “it is not yet clear what the process will be or whether any refunds will be received.”
The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated IEEPA's tariffs in February 2026 by a vote of six to three. The court noted that the word “tariff” is not mentioned in the text of the law, and in the almost 50 years of its validity, no president before Trump had resorted to it to impose duties. The court referred the issue of returning funds already paid to a lower authority.