On February 20, 2026, the US Supreme Court voted 6-3 to put a crucial end to the nearly two-year IEEPA tariff dispute. In the case of Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the "fentanyl tariffs" and "equivalent tariffs" imposed by the Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) exceeded the statutory administrative authority of the President of the United States, and confirmed that the power to impose tariffs is exclusive to the United States Congress. The US Supreme Court also pointed out that tariffs belong to the trade legislative power granted to Congress by the US Constitution, and the President has no authority to unilaterally implement such measures without clear authorization.

This verdict directly triggered the Gao Da Yue$166 billion IEEPA tariff refund windowAnd the main payers of these taxes are global exporters to the United States, including Chinese companies, and their US import partners. When companies export to the United States using DDP, mDDP, or the "double clearance tax" model, many customs clearance arrangements that are considered "commonplace" in practice may pose obstacles for Chinese export companies, resulting in them being unable to obtain IEEPA tariff refunds.

For example, under the mDDP+"double clearance tax" model, many Chinese export companies are not clear about who the registered importer of record on the US Customs declaration form (also known as "Form 7501") is. In practice, the "cross-border logistics comprehensive service provider" that provides a one-stop service of "LCL transportation customs clearance overseas warehouse" will not submit the final version of Form 7501 to it. Therefore, in the process of applying for a refund of IEEPA tariffs, Chinese export enterprises may face: (1) as the export enterprise is not a registered importer on the 7501 form, it cannot directly apply for a tax refund to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and requires the cooperation of the "Cross border Logistics Integrated Service Provider" and its authorized U.S. customs clearance agency to complete the tax refund; (2) In the freight forwarding industry, the phenomenon of layer by layer subcontracting is not uncommon. When the "cross-border logistics comprehensive service provider" has insufficient influence on the US customs clearance agency it delegates to, there may be a situation where the US customs clearance agency refuses to refund the export enterprise after receiving the IEEPA tax refund; (3) Export companies often do not have a direct contractual relationship with US customs clearance agencies, so whether filing a lawsuit in China or the United States, they may face challenges such as a lack of legal basis.

In our release on February 25th, 2026Final or Opening of Act Two? - The Trump Administration's Tariff Policies Recognized as Illegal by the US Supreme CourtIn this article, we have conducted a preliminary analysis of the core legal logic and its institutional impact of the judgment. Now, with CBP officially submitting its tax refund process plan, this involvesTens of thousands of enterprises, billions of dollars in scaleThe tax refund action is gradually transforming from abstract legal rulings to administrative procedures with practical operational paths.

This article will review the latest developments in the IEEPA tariff refund process based on existing public information, and conduct a preliminary analysis of the legal and compliance issues that may be involved, taking into account the common cross-border trade structures of Chinese enterprises (especially cross-border e-commerce export enterprises, cross-border logistics enterprises, and cross-border e-commerce platforms), in order to provide reference for relevant enterprises.

1、 The IEEPA tariff refund process proposed by CBP

On March 4, 2026, the plaintiff Atmus Filtration, Inc. filed a lawsuit with the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) regarding the IEEPA related tariffs imposed on it, requesting the refund of all related payments, necessary re evaluation of its customs declaration, and payment of interest at the statutory rate.

Under the US customs system, customs declarations usually have finality after completion of liquidation, but in certain circumstances, adjustments may still be made through protest procedures, court judgments, or customs initiated re liquidation. The above-mentioned lawsuit objectively promotes CBP to accelerate the development of a unified tax refund enforcement mechanism.

On March 6, 2026, Brandon Lord, Executive Director of the CBP Trade Projects Office, submitted an official statement to the United States International Trade Court, detailing the technical challenges currently faced in tax refund enforcement and the proposed solutions.

Limitations of the current systemThe current electronic customs clearance system (Automated Commercial Environment, ACE) of CBP only supports processing 10000 summary lines of customs declarations in a single batch, while there are 1684648252 summary lines involved, requiring 170000 manual batch update operations; Moreover, batch processing is prone to anomalies and requires separate verification, with unpredictable time consumption.

New System Development PlanTo enforce court rulings, CBP is urgently developing new functional modules for the ACE system to replace the original single customs declaration processing mode and achieve automated batch tax refunds. This feature is expected to be developed and put into use within 45 days (approximately by the end of April 2026). According to CBP estimates, the new system can save over 4 million manual labor hours compared to fully manual processing. According to the current plan disclosed by CBP, the core process of the new system after its launch is roughly as follows:

· Importers declare a list of customs declarations related to IEEPA tariffs in the ACE system;

· The ACE system automatically verifies the customs declaration forms on the list and recalculates the payable tax amount and interest without IEEPA tariffs;

· CBP verifies the declaration content of importers and resolves disputes;

· The ACE system automatically completes the clearing/re clearing of customs declaration forms;

· The ACE system automatically aggregates refund and interest amounts based on the importer and settlement date;

· CBP verifies the aggregated refund amount;

· The US Treasury Department issues refunds to importers electronically.

2、 Development Plan and Progress of CBP Refund System

On March 12, 2026, CBP submitted its first development progress report to the court, clarifying that it is developing a new feature specifically for calculating and legally refunding ad valorem tariffs under the IEEPA framework within the official record system for imported goods - ACE system. The feature is named Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE). CBP has designed the CAPE systemFour integrated modules(1) Tax refund declaration portal (2) Batch processing module (3) Audit and clearing/re clearing module (4) Refund module. According to the CBP report, the development progress of the CAPE system as of March 11, 2026 is as follows:

· Claim Portal: 70% completedThe function is for importers/customs brokers to submit tax refund statements.

· Batch removal of IEEPA tariff module: 40% completedAutomatically remove IEEPA tariff codes and recalculate tax amounts.

· Re settlement and interest calculation module: 80% completedSupport automatic re settlement, daily interest calculation, and daily processing on weekdays (not just Fridays).

· Refund payment module: 60% completedSupport consolidated refunds by importer and allow businesses to designate third-party payment through CBP Form 4811.

· Overall progress: The CAPE system is approximately 60-70% completeWe will continue to push forward with the goal of launching within 45 days (around April 20th).

3、 Feedback from the Court on CBP Refund Plan

On March 12, 2026, the court responded to the progress report submitted by CBP. After reviewing the progress report submitted by CBP, the court continued to suspend the execution of the Revised Order issued on March 5, 2026; At the same time, CBP is required to submit a brief report by 2pm Eastern Time on Thursday, March 19, 2026, detailing the specific progress made by CBP in establishing the "IEEPA Tax Refund+Interest Payment" processing procedure.

4、 Scope of application for IEEPA tariff refund: Who can apply for a refund?

With the gradual clarification of CBP's tax refund mechanism, many Chinese export enterprises are most concerned about whether it falls within the scope of eligible tax refunds. Based on current public information, companies usually need to make preliminary judgments from the following two aspects.

Firstly, it is necessary to confirm whether the relevant tariffs fall within the scope of tariffs imposed under the IEEPA framework. According to existing information, the main items that may be involved in the refund this time include the so-called "fentanyl tariffs" implemented under IEEPA during the Trump administration and some "equivalent tariffs". Enterprises can verify the specific applicable tariff items, tax rates, and paid amounts by accessing the 7501 form or ACE system records, in order to determine whether they fall within the scope of tax refund.

Secondly, it is particularly crucial for Chinese enterprises to clarify who is the registered importer on Form 7501. According to US customs regulations, in principle, only registered importers are eligible to directly apply for refunds from CBP. In traditional trade models, this entity is usually the US importer, but in recent years, under the more common mDDP or "double clearance tax" models, the customs declaration entity may be a third-party logistics company or a US customs clearance agent. As a result, there is often a separation between the party that actually bears the cost of tariffs and the legal entity that applies for tax refunds, which may become the main challenge faced by Chinese export enterprises in the process of tax refund implementation.

5、 Challenges and Solutions Faced by Chinese Enterprises

For the vast number of Chinese export enterprises, the dust settled on the Learning Resources case marks the official opening of the 166 billion yuan tax refund window. For some large export enterprises, the potential tax refund amount may reach tens of millions or even billions of dollars. However, there is still a distance between the victory of the judgment and the implementation of tax refunds. Before considering tax refunds, companies need to first pay attention to the following issues:

Firstly, how to determine the eligibility of tax refund entities under the legal framework of "registered importers" in the United States Customs?In the model of "double clearance tax package" or layered subcontracting of customs clearance services, the actual tariff bearer is often not the registered importer in legal name. This "separation of rights and responsibilities" will lead to who will ultimately receive the tax refund? There will also be controversy over whether the legal tax refund subject is willing or obligated to return the tax refund to the actual responsible party.

Secondly, how to timely track the import clearance status and lock in rights during the relief window period?Enterprises need to sort out the customs clearance status of all corresponding customs entries for exported goods to the United States, including different statuses such as liquidated, unsettled, suspended, or liquidated but can apply for a re liquidation through the protest process. After the CAPE system is launched, different customs declaration statuses may mean different tax refund procedures.

Thirdly, how to clarify the legal relationship between export enterprises and "cross-border logistics comprehensive service providers" and US customs clearance agencies?Enterprises need to design a reasonable communication strategy with "cross-border logistics comprehensive service providers" and US customs clearance agencies, and ensure that if the "cross-border logistics comprehensive service providers" and US customs clearance agencies receive CBP refunded tariffs, they are willing to fully refund them to the exporting enterprises to avoid possible disputes.

Fourthly, how to balance the legal risks brought by applying for tax refunds and possible non compliant behavior in past exports?In practice, some companies have underreported import prices to CBP and avoided US tariffs. Although the verification process for applicants applying for tax refunds in CAPE by CBP is currently unclear, whether CBP will initiate inspections or enforcement on the customs declaration items involved in the application is also a factor that export enterprises need to consider when deciding whether to apply for tax refunds.

6、 Our solution

As a team of lawyers specializing in customs and international trade, since the Trump administration 1.0 period, we have represented export companies from different industries in handling multiple cases and projects related to the "Trump tariffs", including: (1) enforcement cases investigated jointly by CBP and the US Department of Justice due to underreporting import prices; (2) litigation and arbitration cases between export companies and freight forwarding companies regarding different reasons leading to export companies overpaying US tariffs, being unable to apply for tax refunds from CBP, and cargo damage caused by CBP inspections; (3) analysis related to US non preferential rules of origin and the "first sale principle"; and (4) cross-border logistics chain compliance projects for cross-border e-commerce platforms and logistics companies. Therefore, we have accumulated rich experience and measures around common cross-border e-commerce logistics models, US customs clearance arrangements, ACE system, 7501 form, and the identification of registered importers.