Key Customs Steps for Importers of Record

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision invalidating the IEEPA tariffs, attention is now shifting from whether the tariffs were lawful to how companies can actually recover the billions of dollars at stake. As discussed in the first part of this eight-part series, the refund process will likely be complex, protracted, and highly fact-specific, with key issues to be resolved by the Court of International Trade (CIT).

At the same time, many companies face two other, often equally important questions: Now that the Court has ruled, who is potentially entitled to refunds? And what should be done to protect the organization’s imports while the Trump administration is pivoting to new tariff authorities and continuing to crack down on potential tariff evasion?

To help answer these questions and to help companies navigate the aftermath of this historic Supreme Court decision, the Foley International Trade & National Security and Supply Chain teams are providing an eight-article series regarding how to manage the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s IEEPA decision. The series covers:

• Part I: Understanding the New Section 122 Tariffs and Preserving IEEPA Refund Rights (found here)
• Part II: Preserving the Right to IEEPA Tariff Refunds (found here)
• Part III: Contractual Issues for Companies That Are Importers of Record (found here)
• Part IV: Customs & Supply Chain Issues for Importers of Record
• Part V: Refund-Related Issues for Companies That Indirectly Paid IEEPA Tariffs
• Part VI: Avoiding Common Pitfalls When Dealing with Refund-Related Issues
• Part VII: Understanding the Future Landing Spot for Tariffs
• Part VIII: What Steps Should Importers Owed Refunds Be Taking to Prepare

Part IV follows below.

Customs & Supply Chain Issues for Companies That Are Importers of Record

Part III of this series outlined contractual issues for importers of record who paid the IEEPA tariffs. But the contractual piece is only half of the equation. Importers of record also need to ensure they are best positioned to secure any refunds, while also adapting to the new replacement tariffs. Therefore, on the customs side, we recommend the following steps for importers of record dealing with these issues:

Step 1: Have You Identified the Full Universe of Affected Entries?

The starting point for any refund strategy is developing a complete, accurate, and defensible inventory of all entries subject to IEEPA tariffs. Without this baseline, companies risk missing refund opportunities, failing to meet procedural deadlines, or advancing inconsistent positions in litigation or administrative proceedings.

In practice, this exercise is often more complex than expected, particularly for importers operating across multiple entities, brokers, and ports of entry. Importers should:

• Extract comprehensive Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) data covering the full IEEPA tariff period, including:
  • the initial February 2025 tariffs;
  • subsequent expansions (e.g., the April 2025 “Liberation Day” measures); and
  • any modifications or successor tariff provisions.
• Identify all relevant HTS classifications, including entries reflecting Chapter 99 provisions (e.g., the 9903.01 / 9903.02 series), and confirm that these classifications were consistently applied.
• Map entries across the organization, including:
  • all U.S. importer entities within the corporate structure;
  • affiliated companies and related-party importers;
  • all customs brokers and filing locations; and
  • all ports of entry.
• Create a centralized “master entry tracker” capturing the following for each entry:
  • entry number and date;
  • HTS classification (including Chapter 99 provisions);
  • duties paid (including IEEPA tariffs and related amounts);
  • the importer of record; and
  • broker and port information.
• Segment entries by procedural status, including:
  • unliquidated entries;
  • liquidated entries within the protest window; and
  • entries that may be approaching liquidation or protest deadlines.
• Reconcile data across systems, including:
  • ACE reports;
  • broker records (e.g., entry summaries/U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) Form 7501 data); and
  • internal ERP and accounts payable systems.
• Identify data gaps or inconsistencies, such as:
  • missing entries or incomplete records;
  • discrepancies between broker filings and internal financial data; and
  • the inconsistent use of tariff classifications.

Key takeaway: Companies that invest early in building a complete and reliable entry-level dataset will be best positioned to preserve refund rights, meet procedural deadlines, and support both litigation and administrative recovery efforts. This “master entry tracker” becomes the foundation for every subsequent step in the refund process.

Step 2: Are You Tracking Liquidation and Protest Deadlines in Real Time?

Even after identifying the full universe of affected entries, companies face a critical operational challenge: ensuring that procedural deadlines tied to those entries are not missed. In the customs context, liquidation and protest deadlines can determine whether duties become final and unchallengeable absent judicial relief.

Given the uncertainty surrounding how the CIT will address administrative exhaustion and the treatment of liquidated entries, companies should assume that failure to track and act on these deadlines could materially impair refund recovery.

Companies should implement a real-time tracking process that encompasses the following:

• Monitoring liquidation status for all entries, including:
  • whether entries remain unliquidated;
  • whether liquidation has occurred; and
  • the date of liquidation for each entry.
• Tracking protest deadlines (19 U.S.C. § 1514), including:
  • the 180-day deadline from liquidation to file a protest;
  • the identification of high-value entries where protests should be prioritized; and
  • internal escalation procedures as deadlines approach.
• Identifying entries eligible for post-summary corrections (PSCs), including:
  • unliquidated entries within the PSC filing window; and
  • whether PSCs are strategically appropriate given broader litigation posture.
• Creating a centralized “deadline tracker,” integrated with the master entry dataset, that:
  • flags upcoming liquidation events;
  • tracks protest and PSC deadlines in real time; and
  • assigns internal responsibility for action.
• Monitoring CBP communications and instructions, including:
  • CSMS messages that may affect liquidation timing or instructions; and
  • any CBP guidance regarding the handling of IEEPA-related entries.
• Coordinating with customs brokers, including:
  • ensuring brokers are aligned on protest and PSC strategy;
  • confirming that brokers are not taking unilateral actions inconsistent with company strategy; and
  • establishing clear instructions for escalation when liquidation occurs.
• Evaluating the strategic use of protests, including:
  • whether to file protests broadly to preserve rights;
  • whether to focus on representative or high-value entries; and
  • how protest strategy aligns with any parallel CIT litigation.

Key takeaway: Liquidation is the point at which duties typically become final. In a rapidly evolving legal environment, companies that fail to actively track liquidation and protest deadlines risk losing refund opportunities by operation of law. A disciplined, real-time tracking process is essential to preserving optionality while the broader refund framework is being resolved.

Step 3: Have You Considered Filing a Protective 1581(i) Action at the CIT?

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision and the remand to the CIT, one of the most important strategic decisions facing importers is whether to file a protective action under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) to preserve refund rights. As discussed in our companion alert, the contours of the refund process remain highly uncertain, and procedural posture may ultimately determine who recovers — and how quickly.

While administrative mechanisms (e.g., PSCs and protests) may play a role, there is significant uncertainty regarding whether such remedies will be required, sufficient, or even available. A properly filed 1581(i) action provides a means of securing independent judicial oversight before an Article III court and avoids relying on evolving administrative processes.

Companies should carefully evaluate whether to pursue a protective filing, taking into account the following considerations:

• Preserving jurisdiction and avoiding procedural forfeiture:
  • Whether a 1581(i) filing is necessary to ensure access to the CIT regardless of how the Court resolves exhaustion issues.
  • The risk that relying solely on administrative remedies could later be deemed inadequate or untimely.
  • Whether failure to file could limit recovery if relief is ultimately restricted to plaintiffs.
• Scope of relief and positioning:
  • Whether the CIT may limit relief to parties that have filed actions.
  • The potential advantage of being a named plaintiff in shaping the remedy, timing, and implementation of refunds.
  • The ability to seek reliquidation of entries, including those that have already liquidated.
• Interaction with administrative strategies:
  • How a 1581(i) action aligns with (or replaces) PSC and protest strategies.
  • Whether a hybrid approach is appropriate (i.e., preserving administrative rights while pursuing judicial relief).
  • Avoiding inconsistent positions between litigation and administrative filings.
• Entity-level considerations:
  • Whether each importer of record within a corporate group should file separately.
  • Coordination among affiliates, subsidiaries, and related parties.
  • Ensuring that the proper legal entity is named to preserve its specific refund rights.
• Timing and coordination:
  • Monitoring developments in the CIT to assess optimal timing for filing.
  • Coordinating with outside counsel and, where appropriate, industry groups or aligned plaintiffs.
  • Ensuring filings are made before any potential cutoff created by future administrative processes.
• Operational and financial considerations:
  • Internal approvals and governance around litigation decisions.
  • Anticipated costs relative to potential refund recovery.
  • Alignment with broader refund and commercial recovery strategy.

Key takeaway: In a landscape where the CIT will be resolving fundamental questions regarding jurisdiction, exhaustion, and the scope of relief, a protective 1581(i) action remains one of the most effective tools for preserving refund rights and maintaining control over the recovery process. Companies that delay or forgo filing risk being constrained by whatever administrative framework ultimately emerges.

Step 4: Are You Tracking Refund Developments and Required Steps to Secure Refunds?

Although the Supreme Court has invalidated the IEEPA tariffs, it did not establish a mechanism for issuing refunds. Instead, the issue has been remanded to the CIT, which will need to resolve a number of foundational questions regarding whether refunds will be issued, to whom, and through what process.

As a result, companies must actively monitor developments and be prepared to act quickly as the refund framework begins to take shape. This is not a “wait and see” situation — the steps required to secure refunds may evolve rapidly and may include both judicial and administrative actions.

Companies should:

• Monitor developments at the CIT, including:
  • briefing schedules and key filings by the parties;
  • positions taken by the government regarding refunds and administrative processes; and
  • court rulings addressing:
    • scope of relief (plaintiff-only vs. broader application);
    • administrative exhaustion requirements;
    • treatment of liquidated entries; and
    • the availability of nationwide or programmatic relief.
• Track potential administrative refund mechanisms, including:
  • whether CBP establishes a formal refund process (automatic or opt-in); and
  • whether refunds are tied to:
    • protests or PSCs;
    • participation in litigation; or
    • new filing or certification requirements.
• Identify required actions to qualify for refunds, including:
  • whether additional filings, certifications, or documentation will be required;
  • whether companies must affirmatively elect into a refund program; and
  • whether deadlines or eligibility criteria are imposed.
• Maintain a “refund readiness” posture, including:
  • ensuring entry-level data is complete and accessible;
  • preparing to submit supporting documentation on short notice; and
  • coordinating internally to respond quickly to new requirements.
• Align internal stakeholders, including:
  • legal (litigation strategy and filings);
  • trade compliance (entry data and CBP processes); and
  • finance (tracking expected recoveries and reconciliation).
• Monitor communications from CBP and other agencies, including:
  • CSMS messages;
  • Federal Register notices; and
  • agency guidance or FAQs related to refund implementation.
• Evaluate strategic positioning as the process evolves, including:
  • whether additional filings (judicial or administrative) are advisable;
  • whether to adjust protest or PSC strategies in light of new guidance; and
  • how developments affect timing and likelihood of recovery.

Key takeaway: The refund process will not be automatic and is likely to evolve through a combination of litigation and agency action. Companies that actively track developments and maintain a state of “refund readiness” will be best positioned to act quickly and secure recovery as the process unfolds.

Step 5: Are You Audit Ready for Refund Claims?

Importers seeking significant refunds of IEEPA tariffs should expect heightened scrutiny from CBP. Large-scale refund claims — particularly those tied to a high-profile Supreme Court decision — are likely to trigger validation efforts, focused reviews, or formal audits.

Accordingly, companies should not view refund recovery as purely a litigation or administrative exercise, but as one that must be supported by a defensible and well-documented import compliance posture.

Companies should take proactive steps to ensure audit readiness, including:

• Validate tariff applicability and classification:
  • confirm that goods were properly classified, including correct use of Chapter 99 provisions (e.g., 9903.01/9903.02);
  • identify any inconsistencies in classification across entries, products, or time periods; and
  • assess whether any classifications could be challenged under current enforcement priorities.
• Confirm country-of-origin determinations:
  • review origin analyses for products subject to IEEPA tariffs;
  • ensure documentation supports substantial transformation or other origin determinations; and
  • evaluate exposure to transshipment or origin-evasion scrutiny, particularly for goods involving high-risk jurisdictions.
• Review customs valuation practices:
  • confirm that declared values reflect the price actually paid or payable, including proper statutory additions;
  • evaluate treatment of:
    • assists;
    • royalties and license fees; and
    • transfer pricing adjustments or post-import true-ups; and
  • ensure consistency between customs declarations and financial records
• Reconcile entry and payment data:
  • confirm that refund amounts claimed align with actual duties paid;
  • reconcile ACE data, broker records, and internal financial systems; and
  • identify and resolve discrepancies before submitting or supporting refund claims.
• Review broker filings and instructions:
  • confirm that brokers filed entries consistent with company instructions;
  • ensure there are no systemic errors in filings (e.g., misclassification, incorrect origin reporting); and
  • verify that documentation retained by brokers is complete and accessible.
• Evaluate exposure in high-risk areas:
  • tariff engineering or product modifications implemented during the tariff period;
  • changes in sourcing or routing that could raise enforcement questions; and
  • use of duty mitigation strategies (e.g., foreign trade zones (FTZs), drawbacks) and their interaction with IEEPA tariffs.
• Conduct targeted internal audits or “mock audits”:
  • identify and remediate issues before CBP review;
  • prepare internal teams for potential CBP inquiries or audits; and
  • develop consistent narratives and documentation to support positions taken.
• Ensure documentation is complete and organized:
  • entry documentation (e.g., CBP Form 7501 data, commercial invoices, packing lists);
  • origin documentation and supplier certifications; and
  • internal analyses supporting classification, valuation, and origin determinations.

Key takeaway: Refund claims of this magnitude will attract scrutiny. Companies that proactively validate their import practices and documentation will be far better positioned to secure refunds without triggering delays, disputes, or enforcement exposure.

Step 6: Is Your Customs Compliance In Order?

Beyond preparing for refund-related scrutiny, companies should take this opportunity to ensure that their overall customs compliance framework is current, consistent, and aligned with today’s enforcement environment. The invalidation of the IEEPA tariffs does not reduce CBP’s focus on enforcement — if anything, it increases it, particularly as the government pivots to new tariff authorities and continues to prioritize tariff evasion, origin issues, and supply chain integrity.

Companies should evaluate and, where necessary, enhance their customs compliance programs, including:

• Governance and internal controls:
  • clearly defined roles and responsibilities for customs compliance across legal, trade, finance, and operations;
  • documented policies and procedures covering classification, valuation, origin, and broker management; and
  • escalation protocols for high-risk or uncertain import decisions.
• Classification controls and consistency:
  • centralized oversight of HTS classifications to avoid inconsistent treatment across products or business units;
  • procedures for reviewing and updating classifications in response to new tariff measures; and
  • use of binding rulings or internal classification guidance where appropriate.
• Country-of-origin and supply chain integrity controls:
  • standardized processes for origin determinations and documentation;
  • controls addressing transshipment risk and supplier representations; and
  • integration of origin analysis with broader supply chain integrity programs (including forced labor considerations).
• Valuation and transfer pricing alignment:
  • coordination between customs and tax teams to ensure alignment between declared values and transfer pricing policies;
  • processes for handling post-import adjustments in a CBP-compliant manner; and
  • periodic reviews of assists, royalties, and other statutory additions.
• Broker oversight and management:
  • clear written instructions to brokers regarding classification, origin, and valuation;
  • periodic audits of broker filings to ensure accuracy and consistency; and
  • defined protocols for correcting errors and addressing discrepancies.
• Training and awareness:
  • regular training for personnel involved in import, procurement, logistics, and finance;
  • targeted training on new tariff programs and enforcement priorities; and
  • ensuring business teams understand the compliance implications of sourcing and pricing decisions.
• Recordkeeping and documentation systems:
  • systems to ensure required customs records are maintained and readily accessible;
  • alignment between operational systems (ERP) and customs documentation; and
  • readiness to respond to CBP requests for information or audit inquiries.
• Continuous monitoring and testing:
  • periodic internal audits or compliance reviews beyond refund-related entries;
  • use of data analytics to identify anomalies or trends; and
  • ongoing updates to compliance programs based on regulatory and enforcement developments.

Key takeaway: The post-IEEPA environment is not a return to the status quo — it is a transition to heightened and evolving enforcement. Companies that use this moment to strengthen their customs compliance infrastructure will be better positioned not only to support refund recovery, but also to manage ongoing tariff exposure and reduce future enforcement risk.

Step 7: Are You Managing the Transition To New Tariff Regimes?

The invalidation of the IEEPA tariffs does not create a tariff-free environment — it marks a transition to a new and rapidly evolving set of tariff measures. As the administration pivots to alternative authorities (including Sections 122, 232, and 301), companies must ensure that their import operations are fully aligned with current requirements and not relying on outdated assumptions tied to the IEEPA framework.

This transition period presents particular risk: companies focused on refund recovery may inadvertently overlook new tariff exposure, misapply updated HTS provisions, or carry forward legacy classifications and origin assumptions that no longer hold true.

Companies should take proactive steps to manage this transition, including:

• Identify and map new tariff exposure:
  • determine which products are now subject to new or increased duties under Section 122, 232, or 301 actions;
  • identify overlap or interaction between prior IEEPA-covered goods and newly covered products; and
  • confirm the correct application of new Chapter 99 provisions and duty rates.
• Update classification and entry processes:
  • ensure HTS classifications reflect current tariff programs and are updated in real time;
  • validate that entry procedures and broker instructions incorporate new tariff requirements; and
  • avoid “carryover errors” where outdated tariff codes or assumptions continue to be used.
• Reassess country-of-origin implications:
  • evaluate whether new tariff regimes change the significance of origin determinations;
  • identify supply chains that may now present increased tariff exposure based on sourcing country; and
  • confirm that origin analyses remain accurate and defensible under current rules.
• Integrate tariff changes into operational and financial systems:
  • update ERP, landed cost models, and pricing systems to reflect current duty rates;
  • ensure procurement and finance teams are working from aligned and current tariff data; and
  • identify products where new tariffs materially affect margins or pricing decisions.
• Coordinate across functions:
  • align legal, trade compliance, procurement, and logistics teams on new tariff requirements;
  • ensure consistent understanding of how new tariffs affect sourcing, pricing, and import processes; and
  • establish clear internal communication channels for rapid updates as new measures are introduced.
• Monitor ongoing developments:
  • track Federal Register notices, HTS updates, and CBP guidance related to new tariff programs;
  • monitor for expansions, exclusions, or modifications to existing tariff measures; and
  • be prepared to adjust quickly as new actions are announced or implemented.
• Evaluate mitigation and adaptation strategies:
  • consider supply chain adjustments, alternative sourcing, or tariff engineering opportunities;
  • assess feasibility of duty mitigation programs (e.g., FTZs, bonded warehouses, drawback) under new regimes; and
  • identify longer-term structural changes needed to reduce tariff exposure.

Key takeaway: The end of the IEEPA tariffs is not an endpoint — it is a pivot point. Companies that actively manage the transition to new tariff regimes will be better positioned to avoid new exposure, maintain compliance, and protect margins in an increasingly dynamic trade environment.

Step 8: Is Your Supply Chain Flexible Enough To Weather Ongoing Tariff Changes?

The events surrounding the IEEPA tariffs — and their abrupt invalidation — underscore a central reality: tariff risk is no longer episodic; it is continuous and structural. Companies that treat tariffs as a one-time disruption will remain reactive. Those that build flexibility into their supply chains will be better positioned to respond to rapid legal and policy shifts.

While Steps 5-7 focus on compliance and immediate operational adjustments, this step addresses a broader question: can your supply chain adapt quickly enough when tariff regimes change — again?

Companies should evaluate and enhance supply chain flexibility, including:

• Diversification of sourcing:
  • assess reliance on single-country or single-supplier sourcing, particularly in high-risk jurisdictions;
  • identify alternative suppliers or production locations that could be activated if tariffs shift; and
  • develop contingency sourcing plans for key inputs and finished goods.
• Country-of-origin planning and flexibility:
  • evaluate whether production processes can be restructured to support alternative origin outcomes (consistent with customs rules);
  • understand the operational feasibility and lead times associated with shifting origin; and
  • align origin strategies with compliance requirements to avoid enforcement risk.
• Tariff engineering opportunities:
  • Assess whether product design, component sourcing, or manufacturing steps can be modified to achieve more favorable classifications or duty treatment.
  • Ensure that any such strategies are legally supportable and well documented.
  • Integrate engineering and compliance teams into product development decisions.
• Use of duty mitigation programs:
  • Evaluate use (or expanded use) of:
    • FTZs;
    • bonded warehouses; and
    • duty drawback.

Companies should also determine whether current programs remain optimal under new tariff regimes:

• Operational agility and lead times:
  • assess how quickly sourcing, production, and logistics can be adjusted in response to tariff changes;
  • identify bottlenecks that could delay supply chain shifts; and
  • build flexibility into production planning and inventory strategies.
• Contractual alignment with supply chain strategy:
  • ensure supplier agreements support rapid changes in sourcing or production; and
  • align contractual tariff provisions with operational realities (e.g., ability to shift suppliers or renegotiate pricing).
• Cross-functional integration:
  • coordinate supply chain decisions across legal, trade compliance, procurement, and finance teams; and
  • ensure that tariff and compliance considerations are embedded in sourcing decisions, not addressed after the fact.
• Scenario planning and stress testing:
  • model the impact of potential new tariffs or expansions of existing measures;
  • identify high-risk products or supply chains and develop mitigation strategies in advance; and
  • conduct “what-if” analyses to test organizational readiness for sudden tariff changes.

Key takeaway: In the current environment, supply chain flexibility is a critical component of trade compliance and risk management. Companies that build adaptable, well-coordinated supply chains will be far better equipped to navigate ongoing tariff volatility and protect both compliance and commercial performance

If you have questions about these matters, please reach out to the authors or your Foley & Larder relationship attorney.

Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ # 1. Who is considered the “importer of record” for purposes of recovering IEEPA tariff refunds?

Under U.S. customs law, the importer of record is generally the entity that filed the entry and was legally responsible for paying duties to CBP. This entity is typically listed on the entry summary (CBP Form 7501).

Because refunds are normally issued to the importer of record, companies should confirm which legal entity within their corporate structure served in that role for each affected entry. In many organizations, imports may have been conducted through multiple U.S. affiliates or subsidiaries, each of which may have separate refund rights.

FAQ # 2. How can companies determine how much they paid in IEEPA tariffs?

Companies can typically identify IEEPA tariff payments by reviewing entry-level data through ACE. This analysis generally involves:

• pulling entry data covering the IEEPA tariff period beginning in February 2025;
• identifying entries containing IEEPA Chapter 99 provisions (e.g., HTS codes beginning with 9903.01 or 9903.02); and
• confirming the duties actually paid on those entries.

If a company does not have direct ACE access, customs brokers can typically generate the relevant reports. Because refunds will be calculated by Customs, developing a comprehensive dataset of affected entries is a critical first step to determining the amount of refunds potentially coming back and then verifying that CBP refunded the correct amount.

FAQ # 3. Why is tracking liquidation status so important?

Under U.S. customs law, liquidation generally finalizes the duties owed on an entry. Once liquidation occurs, companies normally have 180 days to file a protest challenging the decision. If that deadline passes without action, the duties may become final and unchallengeable, absent judicial intervention.

FAQ # 4. Do companies still need to file protests if the Supreme Court has already invalidated the IEEPA tariffs?

The answer remains uncertain. The Supreme Court’s decision invalidated the tariffs, but it did not establish a specific refund mechanism. The CIT will determine how refunds will be implemented and whether administrative remedies (such as protests or post-summary corrections) are required.

As a result, many companies are taking a protective approach, which may include:

• monitoring liquidation and protest deadlines;
• filing protests on certain entries to preserve rights; and
• considering parallel litigation strategies.

Given the uncertainty surrounding how the CIT will address issues such as administrative exhaustion and liquidated entries, companies should closely monitor liquidation status and consider protesting deadlines for all entries that may be affected by the IEEPA refund process, until such time as the CIT has definitively established that no such protests are necessary.

FAQ #5. What is a “protective” action under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)?

A protective § 1581(i) action is a lawsuit filed at the CIT seeking judicial relief related to customs matters when other statutory jurisdictional avenues may be inadequate. In the IEEPA tariff context, many importers have filed protective § 1581(i) cases to preserve their ability to seek refunds directly through the courts while the legal framework for refunds continues to develop. Such filings can help ensure that companies maintain access to judicial relief, even if administrative procedures ultimately prove insufficient or unavailable. They also offer the potential for quicker refunds.

FAQ #6. Will refunds be issued automatically?

At present, there is no confirmed refund mechanism. The refund process will likely emerge through a combination of litigation at the CIT and administrative processes developed by CBP. Possible outcomes could include:

• automatic refunds;
• opt-in refund procedures;
• refunds tied to protests or administrative filings; or
• refunds limited to parties involved in litigation.

Because the process has not yet been finalized, companies should remain in a state of “refund readiness” and monitor developments closely.

FAQ #7. Should companies expect CBP scrutiny of refund claims?

Yes. We anticipate that significant refund claims are likely to receive heightened scrutiny from CBP. CBP may review issues such as:

• tariff classification;
• country-of-origin determinations;
• customs valuation;
• documentation supporting duty payments;
• free trade preferences;
• correct payment of other tariffs, such as Section 232 and 301 tariffs;
• full payment of antidumping and countervailing duties; and
• the accuracy of entry filings.

Importers seeking refunds should therefore ensure that their import compliance practices and documentation are well supported and internally consistent.

FAQ #8. Why should companies review their customs compliance programs now?

The invalidation of the IEEPA tariffs does not reduce CBP enforcement activity. If anything, enforcement may increase as the government shifts to other tariff authorities and intensifies efforts to identify tariff evasion.

Importers should use this moment to evaluate whether their customs compliance programs adequately address such items as:

• classification;
• country of origin determinations;
• valuation and transfer pricing alignment;
• broker oversight;
• free trade preferences and originating status determinations;
• post-entry procedures and checks;
• proper tracking and attribution of assists;
• recordkeeping practices; and
• internal controls and training.

Strengthening these programs can reduce enforcement risk while also supporting refund recovery efforts.

FAQ #9. Are new tariffs replacing the IEEPA tariffs?

Yes. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the administration has begun pivoting to other tariff authorities, including measures imposed under Sections 122, 232, and 301. As a result, companies should not assume that tariff exposure has disappeared. Instead, they should:

• confirm how new tariffs apply to their products;
• update HTS classifications and Chapter 99 provisions where necessary; and
• ensure that entry procedures reflect current tariff programs.

Part VII of this series will explore the anticipated landing spot for the new tariffs in detail.

FAQ #10. How should companies prepare their supply chains for ongoing tariff volatility?

The events surrounding the IEEPA tariffs highlight the growing importance of supply chain flexibility. Companies may wish to evaluate:

• diversification of sourcing across countries or suppliers;
• opportunities for tariff engineering;
• use of duty mitigation programs such as FTZs or drawback;
• contractual provisions addressing tariff allocation; and
• internal processes for monitoring tariff developments.

Organizations that build flexibility into their supply chains are better positioned to respond quickly to future policy shifts.

FAQ #11. What internal teams should be involved in managing IEEPA refund issues?

Managing refund recovery and the transition to new tariff regimes typically requires coordination across several internal functions, including:

• legal and litigation teams;
• trade compliance and customs specialists;
• finance and accounting teams;
• procurement and supply chain personnel; and
• external customs brokers and advisors.

Ensuring alignment across these stakeholders is critical to protecting refund rights and maintaining compliant import operations.

FAQ #12. Why is supply chain flexibility becoming more important in the current trade environment?

The events surrounding the IEEPA tariffs, as well as their abrupt invalidation, highlight a broader trend: tariff policy is increasingly dynamic and politically driven. Tariff measures can now appear, expand, or disappear with relatively little notice.

As a result, companies that rely on static sourcing strategies may face sudden cost increases or supply disruptions. Organizations that build flexibility into their supply chains, including through diversified sourcing, adaptable manufacturing structures, and contingency planning, are better positioned to respond to these shifts.

FAQ #13. What does “supply chain flexibility” mean in practice?

Supply chain flexibility generally refers to a company’s ability to adjust sourcing, production, or logistics quickly when trade conditions change. In practice, this may include:

• maintaining alternative suppliers or production locations;
• structuring manufacturing processes so that country-of-origin outcomes can shift if necessary;
• designing products in ways that allow classification flexibility; and
• ensuring contracts and operational systems allow rapid adjustments to sourcing decisions.

Companies that build this flexibility into their supply chains are better able to mitigate tariff exposure and respond to new policy developments.

FAQ #14. Should companies diversify sourcing across multiple countries?

In many cases, diversification can help reduce tariff exposure and geopolitical risk. Companies that rely heavily on a single country or supplier may face greater vulnerability when tariffs or trade restrictions are imposed on that jurisdiction. Diversifying sourcing, where commercially feasible, can help provide alternative production pathways if tariff regimes change.

FAQ #15. Can companies restructure production to change country-of-origin outcomes?

In some cases, companies may be able to restructure manufacturing processes in ways that affect country-of-origin determinations under U.S. customs law. This typically involves assessing whether production steps in different jurisdictions may result in substantial transformation or otherwise change the origin of the finished product. Merely assembling goods in a new country generally will not create a new country of origin. Any such strategy must be carefully designed and documented to ensure compliance with customs rules. Improper origin planning can create significant enforcement exposure, including allegations of transshipment or tariff evasion, potentially leading to significant underpayment of tariffs and penalties.

FAQ #16. What is “tariff engineering,” and is it legal?

Tariff engineering refers to structuring products or manufacturing processes in a way that results in a more favorable tariff classification, provided the approach complies with applicable customs laws. The international trade courts and CBP have long recognized that companies may structure their products to take advantage of favorable tariff treatment, as long as the product as imported accurately reflects the declared classification. Because classification issues can be complex, companies considering tariff engineering strategies should ensure that their approach is legally supportable and well documented.

FAQ #17. How can duty mitigation programs help reduce tariff exposure?

Several programs within U.S. customs law can help mitigate duty exposure under certain circumstances. These may include:

• FTZs, which can allow duty deferral or reduced duties depending on how goods are processed;
• bonded warehouses, which allow goods to be stored without duty payment until they enter U.S. commerce; and
• duty drawback, which may allow recovery of duties when goods are exported or incorporated into exported products.

The new Section 122 tariffs also include annexes that preserve several duty-saving programs, including for certain agricultural and horticultural goods and for goods intended to deal with chronic disabilities. Importers should periodically evaluate whether these programs remain effective under evolving tariff regimes.

FAQ #18. What operational factors limit a company’s ability to shift supply chains quickly?

Even when alternative sourcing options exist, operational realities may slow supply chain adjustments. Common constraints include:

• supplier qualification and onboarding timelines;
• manufacturing capacity limitations;
• regulatory approvals;
• logistics and transportation constraints; and
• contractual commitments with existing suppliers.

Understanding these constraints and planning around them can help companies assess how quickly sourcing changes could realistically occur.

FAQ #19. How should contracts address tariff volatility?

Contracts with suppliers and customers can play an important role in managing tariff risk. Companies may wish to evaluate whether existing agreements adequately address:

• tariff allocation and pricing adjustments;
• the ability to shift sourcing or production locations;
• renegotiation triggers tied to tariff changes; and
• termination or re-sourcing rights if tariffs materially affect costs.

Aligning contractual terms with supply chain strategy can help ensure that companies retain operational flexibility when tariffs change.

FAQ #20. Why is cross-functional coordination important when addressing tariff risk?

Tariff exposure often intersects with multiple business functions, including:

• legal and trade compliance;
• procurement and sourcing;
• logistics and operations; and
• finance and pricing teams.

If these groups operate in isolation, tariff considerations may be addressed only after sourcing decisions are made, limiting available options. Integrating trade compliance considerations into procurement and supply chain planning can help ensure that tariff risk is identified and managed earlier in the decision-making process.

FAQ #21. How can companies prepare for future tariff changes?

One effective approach is scenario planning. Companies can model the potential impact of new tariffs, expanded trade restrictions, or supply disruptions on key products and supply chains. This analysis can help identify:

• products most vulnerable to tariff changes,
• sourcing structures that create concentrated risk, and
• mitigation strategies that could be implemented if tariffs shift.

Conducting these “what-if” exercises in advance allows companies to respond more quickly and strategically when new trade measures are introduced.

FAQ #22. What is the biggest lesson from the IEEPA tariff episode?

The IEEPA tariffs, the Supreme Court decision invalidating them, the rapid shift to implement replacement tariffs under Section 122, which in turn will be replaced by expanded Section 232 and 301 tariffs, all demonstrate how quickly trade policy can shift.

For many companies, the key lesson is that tariff risk is no longer a temporary disruption but a recurring feature of the global trade environment. Organizations that build adaptable supply chains and integrate trade considerations into sourcing decisions, while adding flexibility to their supply chains, will be better positioned to navigate future policy changes.