A refund system for businesses that paid tariffs the U.S. Supreme Court ruled President Donald Trump imposed without constitutional authority is scheduled to launch Monday, with importers and their brokers able to begin claiming refunds through an online portal beginning at 8 a.m., according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The process represents the first step in a complicated refund system that could eventually lead to refunds for consumers who were billed for some or all of the tariffs on products shipped to them from outside the United States.
In a 6-3 decision this year, the Supreme Court found that Trump usurped Congress' tax-setting role last year when he set new import tax rates on products from almost every other country, citing the U.S. trade deficit as a national emergency that warranted his invoking of a 1977 emergency powers law. The ruling underscores the constitutional limits on executive authority over taxation, a power the framers explicitly vested in the legislative branch.
Massive Refund Program Takes Shape
Although the court majority did not address refunds in its ruling, a judge at the U.S. Court of International Trade determined last month that companies subjected to IEEPA tariffs were entitled to money back. Customs and Border Protection said in court filings that over 330,000 importers paid a total of about $166 billion on over 53 million shipments.
Not all of those orders qualify for the first phase of the refund system's rollout, which is limited to cases in which tariffs were estimated but not finalized or within 80 days of a final accounting. To receive refunds, importers have to register for the CBP's electronic payment system. As of 5 days ago, 56,497 importers had completed registration and were eligible for refunds totaling $127 billion, including interest, the agency said.
If CBP approves a claim, it will take 60-90 days for a refund to be issued, the agency said. The government expects to process refunds in phases, focusing first on more recent tariff payments.
Complex Process Requires Careful Documentation
Any number of technical factors and procedural issues could delay an importer's application. Meghann Supino, a partner at Ice Miller, said the law firm has advised clients to carefully list in their declarations all of the document numbers for forms that went to CBP to describe imported goods and their value.
'If there is an entry on that file that does not qualify, it may cause the entire entry to be rejected or that line item might be rejected by Customs,' she said.
Supino said the portal going live will require composure as well as diligence. 'Like any electronic online program that goes live with a lot of interest, I would expect that there might be some hiccups with the program on Monday,' she said. 'So we continue to ask everyone to be patient, because we think that patience will pay off.'
Nghi Huynh, the partner-in-charge of transfer pricing at accounting and consulting firm Armanino, said most companies claiming refunds will have imported a mix of items, and not all will qualify right away. 'It's about having a clear process in place and keeping track of what's been submitted and what's been paid, so nothing falls through the cracks,' she said. 'Each file can include thousands of entries, but accuracy is critical, as submissions can be rejected if formatting or data is incorrect.'
Small Businesses Face Cash Flow Pressure
Small businesses have eagerly awaited the chance to apply for refunds. Brad Jackson, co-founder of After Action Cigars in Rochester, Minnesota, said he started compiling records and preparing to enter information into the system the minute CBP announced the launch date. The company imports cigars and accessories from Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic.
Last year, it paid $34,000 in tariffs and absorbed much of the cost instead of raising customer prices, Jackson said. Last spring, he had a two-week delay in a shipment due to a missing document, so he is being more careful with refund documents, he said.
'My main concern is the turnaround time,' Jackson said. 'A refund process that takes several months to complete doesn't solve the cash flow problem that it is supposed to fix.'
Consumer Refunds Remain Uncertain
Tariffs are paid by importers, and some companies pass on the tax costs to consumers via higher prices. The system starting up Monday will refund tariffs directly to the businesses that paid them, which are not obligated to share the proceeds with customers. However, class-action lawsuits that aim to force companies, ranging from Costco to Ray-Ban maker Essilor Luxottica, to reimburse shoppers are winding their way through the U.S. legal system.
Individuals may be more likely to receive refunds from delivery companies like FedEx and UPS, which collected tariffs on imports directly from consumers. FedEx has said it would return tariff refunds to customers when it receives them from CBP.
FedEx said in a statement, 'Supporting our customers as they navigate regulatory changes remains our top priority.' It added, 'We are working with our customers as CBP begins processing refunds and plan to begin filing claims on April 20.'
Why This Matters:
The Supreme Court's ruling reaffirms the constitutional separation of powers and Congress's exclusive authority over taxation, a fundamental check on executive overreach. The $166 billion in tariffs paid by over 330,000 importers represents a significant burden on American businesses that absorbed costs or passed them to consumers, demonstrating the economic impact of executive actions that exceed constitutional bounds. With 56,497 importers already registered for $127 billion in potential refunds, the program's success will depend on efficient government administration and clear procedural guidelines. For small businesses like After Action Cigars that absorbed tariff costs to remain competitive, the 60-90 day refund timeline represents continued cash flow pressure that could affect operations and hiring. The question of whether businesses will pass refunds to consumers remains unresolved, with market forces and pending litigation likely to determine outcomes rather than government mandate, preserving the principle that private enterprise decisions should remain with business owners absent legal obligation.