Fight Erupts Over IEEPA Refunds

Fight Erupts Over IEEPA Refunds

The Court of International Trade ordered CBP to liquidate all unliquidated entries that were subject to tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and reliquidation of such entries for which liquidation isn’t final, “without regard to the IEEPA duties.” Judge Richard Eaton said in light of the Supreme Court’s decision finding that IEEPA doesn’t contain any tariff authority and the trade court’s unique ability to issue nationwide relief, such relief is warranted. Eaton also said CIT Chief Judge Mark Barnett indicated Eaton will be the only judge presiding over cases involving IEEPA duty refunds. 

Trade Groups Demand Speed on $130B in Duty Refunds

Major trade groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are calling for rapid refunds of more than $130 billion in duties collected during the president’s second term. The administration, however, is working to slow them down — on Monday, an appeals court denied its request to delay refund proceedings until around June — while privately weighing options to delay refunds indefinitely. 

Politico reported that according to court filings and half a dozen trade and customs experts, more than 2,000 refund-related cases are now pending at the New York-based U.S. Court of International Trade. If the court does not lay out a general refund process for all importers and instead require them to pursue repayment case by case — a scenario that could overwhelm the trade court and drag the refund fight out for years. 

Senate Democrats introduced legislation last week requiring U.S. Customs and Border Protection to issue full refunds with interest for the tariffs. The proposal would also direct companies that receive refunds to pass the money on to consumers. 

While the legislation has no hope of going anywhere in the GOP-controlled Congress, it’s a sign of how Democrats hope to use the issue in their public messaging.

Consumer Interest File Class Action Suits Against Importers

Multiple class action lawsuits have been filed by consumers seeking compensation for increased prices and fees charged by companies to allegedly offset the costs of the IEEPA tariffs. 

According to International Trade Today, lawsuits have been filed against shipping companies United Parcel Service (UPS) and Federal Express Corp. (FedEx), and a lawsuit has been filed against eyewear company EssilorLuxottica, which owns multiple brands such as Ray-Ban and Oakley. Plaintiff Matthew Reiser filed a class action complaint against FedEx with the federal district court in Miami on Feb. 27. 

According to Reiser’s complaint, FedEx billed consumers for IEEPA tariff duties but was “merely facilitating” the payment of duties. “The consumer bore the economic burden of the tariff, not FedEx,” Reiser said in his complaint. “FedEx is a conduit that advances the duty to CBP and then collects reimbursement from the consumer.”

Tariff Refund Delays Could Cost Taxpayers $700 Million a Month

The Cato Institute estimates that, conservatively using the lower rate for all entries, that $700 million in interest is added to the final bill every month that the government delays tariff refunds, or around $23 million per day.

USTR Releases Administration’s Trade Agenda

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, released its 2026 Trade Policy Agenda. USTR’s six priorities, per the report: Continue to negotiate new Agreements on Reciprocal Trade with selected countries; Robustly enforce existing agreements and U.S. trade laws; Secure supply chains for critical minerals and sectors; Conduct the mandatory review of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement; Manage trade with China for reciprocity and balance; and Promote U.S. interests at the World Trade Organization and other international fora, including potentially reviving the long-running WTO dispute between Boeing-Airbus.  

USTR’s report did not directly address the Supreme Court’s Feb. 20 decision striking down tariffs Trump imposed under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. But it contains a robust defense of the Trump administration’s tariff-heavy approach to trade. 

It also expressed confidence that the court’s ruling would not affect the eight ARTs it has signed with Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Malaysia and Taiwan and the framework agreements it has struck with 11 other trading partners, including the European Union, India, Japan, South Korea and Vietnam. 

Trump Spain Trade Threats Causes EU to Freeze Trade Deal

The European Parliament’s trade lawmakers decided to keep the EU-U.S. trade deal frozen amidst volatile transatlantic relations. According to Politico, many political groups voted not to move ahead with legislation to implement the EU-US trade deal. 

The lead negotiators will meet again on March 17 and reassess whether to schedule a committee vote. Once the committee green-lights the trade agreement, it could be ratified in a plenary session on March 25-26. 

The latest postponement follows Trump’s threat on Tuesday to impose a trade embargo on Spain for refusing to allow U.S. warplanes stationed there to launch air strikes on Iran. 

European Commission Vice President Teresa Ribera disputed Trump’s ability to carry out his threat to cut commercial ties with Spain, pointing out the EU’s foreign trade is negotiated as a bloc. 

“It is not possible to engage in [individual] commercial retaliation or business relationships,” Ribera said Wednesday in an interview on Spain’s Cadena Ser radio network. “The trade negotiations of each and every one of the 27 member states of the European Union are the responsibility of the Commission, and it is not possible to divide or fragment them.”

AAEI Mentioned in Recent Wall Street Journal Article on First Sale

AAEI was recently mentioned in a Wall Street Journal article by Jim Emont covering how importers are navigating tariff costs and the renewed focus on the “first sale” rule. AAEI was quoted as saying, “Consumers could feel the blow if importers paid more. The existing first sale program is heavily vetted, structured and enforced.” Read the article here: How U.S. Businesses Are Shaving Billions Off Their Tariff Bills – WSJ

USTR Announces Critical Mineral Agreement

USTR formally invited public comment on the design of a plurilateral Agreement on Trade in Critical Minerals and on policy actions to strengthen critical-mineral supply chains and downstream industries. USTR explicitly said the administration is seeking input on “strategic trade policy and border mechanisms,” including price floors and tariffs, and set a March 19, 2026, deadline for submissions. USTR said it hopes to negotiate a legally binding plurilateral agreement with like-minded trading partners to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign state-directed production, envisioning minimum prices or other price mechanisms with appropriate border measures to ensure secure and fairly priced markets among parties. 

Vogel: USMCA Update

U.S. and Canadian trade officials spoke on February 25 and are preparing an in-person meeting in Washington in the coming weeks. USTR Greer said the administration is open to Canadian proposals, and the discussion is increasingly being framed around fixing specific USMCA gaps and addressing sector-specific tariff pain points outside the core review text. Canada is actively seeking removal of U.S. tariffs on steel, aluminum, and automobiles, potentially through bilateral side deals adjacent to the formal review process. Private trilateral discussions are reportedly more constructive than public rhetoric suggests, even as the July 1, 2026, review deadline remains in place. 

USITC to Investigate Economic Impact of Revoking PNTR for Products of China

The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) is undertaking a new factfinding investigation that will examine the impact of revoking permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) treatment for all products of China on the U.S. economy, U.S. industry, and product sourcing over a six-year period. 

IMF Disputes Administration’s “Balance-of-Payments” Problem

The International Monetary Fund cast doubt on President Donald Trump’s claim that the U.S. has a “large and serious” balance-of-payments problem, potentially undermining the legal basis for his latest round of tariffs. 

The U.S. current account deficit — the largest measure of its trade relationship with the rest of the world — remains too large, but it is not “an immediate pressing concern,” IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva said at a press conference to discuss the group’s annual report on the health of the U.S. economy. “Neither [is it] an immediate pressing concern to fix in year ‘26, in year ’27,” 

Trump turned last week to a provision known as Section 122 to impose a new 10 percent tariff on imported goods. Section 122 allows the president to impose a temporary import surcharge of up to 15 percent for 150 days “to deal with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits” and certain other “fundamental international payments problems.” 

A balance of payments crisis occurs when a country cannot pay for essential imports or service its external debt, usually due to a sudden, rapid depletion of foreign exchange reserves. It often involves a sharp capital flight, forcing a currency devaluation, and indicates an unsustainable imbalance between foreign currency inflows and outflows. 

USTR Releases Counterfeit Report

USTR released the 2025 “Notorious Markets” list flagging counterfeit and piracy hubs, with a focus on illegal sports streaming ahead of the World Cup. 

New Pro-Tariff Steel Group Launched

Domestic steelmakers, manufacturers and the United Steelworkers are launching a trade advocacy group pushing for expanded tariffs on steel. 

The Council on American Steel Trade will press for stronger enforcement of U.S. trade laws and policies protecting domestic steel production.  

The group backs further expanding the steel and aluminum tariffs Trump hiked to 50 percent last year under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as well as anti-dumping and countervailing duties on steel and steel-intensive imports. 

CPSC Updates Use Code

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has updated the guidance on filing disclaims to require the use of intended use codes when submitting data via the Participating Government Agencies (PGA) Messages set or through the CPSC Product Portal for HTS numbers flagged for CPSC E-filing. The changes must be programmed, tested, and then incorporated into supplier requirements and then communicated to suppliers to change how they are uploading information into our systems. Please let AAEI know if you are having challenges with this change: [email protected].