Trump loses tariff case and initiates refunds, determined to fight tariffs to the end.
2026-04-20 19:50:29
After two months of preparation, tariff refunds totaling approximately $166 billion are about to be rolled out. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is scheduled to begin processing refund applications on Monday. Initially, almost all of this huge amount of refunds will go to businesses, and ordinary consumers will hardly benefit directly. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has quickly introduced new tariff arrangements, and the tariff war has not stopped due to the judicial ruling.
The primary recipients of this tariff refund are registered importers, namely commercial entities that pay tariffs at the border and complete the import of goods. The vast majority of these are import companies and professional customs brokers. Individual consumers do not have legal standing in the official refund process.
Even though consumers have borne the cost of higher-priced goods due to tariffs, there is no legal mechanism to precisely link retail price increases to tariff payments. Only a very small number of importers registered as individuals may receive compensation, and the proportion of individual refunds is expected to be less than 1%. Although the US Congress has proposed to establish a consumer tax refund mechanism, it is unlikely to be implemented in the short term.
Individual customers who only use courier companies such as FedEx have a special refund path: FedEx has promised to refund the relevant amount to shippers and consumers who actually bear the customs duties, with the company handling all refund procedures on their behalf.
However, this commitment is merely a corporate statement and is not legally binding. Currently, consumers in Miami have filed a class-action lawsuit, demanding that the court force FedEx to fully refund their $36 in customs duties and related fees.
Once a company receives a refund, it is highly unlikely that it will offer substantial discounts to end customers.
On the one hand, importers have no legal obligation to pass on refunds to downstream customers. Tariff costs are already embedded in the pricing system along with factors such as supply chain fluctuations, exchange rate changes, and demand adjustments, making it extremely difficult to accurately calculate the amount of refunds.
On the other hand, some companies will retain refund funds to cope with the current new global tariffs and potential future tariff policies.
Only the legal risks brought about by class-action lawsuits may force a few companies to share refunds. For example, eyewear giant Essilor is facing a consumer lawsuit for alleged unjust enrichment.
In terms of beneficiaries, the technology, media and telecommunications, and industrial manufacturing sectors will receive the largest amount of refunds, followed by the consumer goods, automotive, and pharmaceutical sectors.
The U.S. Court of International Trade has accepted more than 3,000 refund cases, with many well-known companies such as Costco, Revlon, Toyota, Xerox, and Goodyear submitting applications.
Regarding the refund process, CBP will receive electronic forms of import goods lists submitted by companies on Monday, prioritizing applications for outstanding customs declarations and those within 80 days of final confirmation of tariffs, covering approximately 63% of IEEPA tariffs. Refunds will be disbursed electronically within 60-90 days.
Companies need to comprehensively assess the cascading impact of this event on taxation, transfer pricing, and accounting, rather than focusing solely on the trade aspect.
Trump's subsequent tariff strategy: Judicial checks and balances are insufficient to prevent trade protectionism, and the tariff system will be rapidly restructured.
The Supreme Court ruling did not end Trump's tariff policies; instead, it prompted him to quickly switch legal tools and restructure the tariff system. The core objective was to circumvent IEEPA restrictions and restore or even strengthen existing tariffs. The specific strategies are clearly discernible:
Emergency measure: 15% global temporary tariff fills the policy gap
On the same day as the ruling, Trump signed an executive order imposing a 10% temporary tariff on global goods under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The following day, he raised the tariff to 15%. This section allows the president to impose temporary tariffs for up to 150 days to reduce the trade deficit, serving as an emergency tool to replace IEEPA. It officially took effect on February 24, directly filling the policy gap left by the cancellation of the original illegal tariffs.
Clear objective: Restore pre-ruling tariff levels by early July.
In early July, the Trump administration made it clear that it would use its legal authority, including Section 301 (unfair trade investigation) and Section 232 (national security tariffs), to restore tariffs to the levels before the Supreme Court ruling.
Compared to the more controversial IEEPA, Sections 301 and 232 have a more solid legal foundation and are core tools of traditional US trade protection. They can impose high tariffs on specific countries and industries for a long period of time, thus completely avoiding the legal risks in this case.
Long-term logic: Reliance on traditional terms, trade frictions become the norm.
Trump's tariff strategy, which has been characterized by persistent tariff pressure and normalized trade frictions, remains fundamentally unchanged: to use tariffs as leverage to reduce the trade deficit and protect domestic industries.
Going forward, there will be greater reliance on traditional tariff provisions such as Sections 232 and 301, with targeted taxation of key sectors such as steel, aluminum, automobiles, and technology products. Meanwhile, temporary tariff tools will be retained for flexible rate adjustments. Even after refunds are issued, the new tariffs will be implemented simultaneously, and import costs for businesses will remain volatile.
Increased policy uncertainty and ongoing market competition, coupled with the overlap of tariff refunds and new tariffs, will lead to continuous adjustments in US import costs and supply chain layouts. The dollar exchange rate and commodity prices will also be affected by trade policy disruptions.
For consumers, the new tariffs will further drive up prices, and even class-action lawsuits will hardly offset the cost pressures brought by the tariffs. For multinational companies, they will have to deal with both refund processes and new tariffs at the same time, significantly increasing the pressure on compliance and cost control.
The $166 billion tariff refund was a cleanup measure for Trump's illegal IEEPA tariffs. He has since completed a "legal transformation" of his tariff policy by switching legal tools, restarting traditional trade terms, and implementing temporary global tariffs.
Judicial checks and balances only limit the way the president exercises tariff authority; they do not change the core direction of US trade protectionism. The global tariff war will continue, and trade policy uncertainty will become a core variable in the medium to long term.
Tax refunds primarily target businesses, leaving consumers with little direct benefit.
The primary recipients of this tariff refund are registered importers, namely commercial entities that pay tariffs at the border and complete the import of goods. The vast majority of these are import companies and professional customs brokers. Individual consumers do not have legal standing in the official refund process.
Even though consumers have borne the cost of higher-priced goods due to tariffs, there is no legal mechanism to precisely link retail price increases to tariff payments. Only a very small number of importers registered as individuals may receive compensation, and the proportion of individual refunds is expected to be less than 1%. Although the US Congress has proposed to establish a consumer tax refund mechanism, it is unlikely to be implemented in the short term.
Special Refund Pathways: Hopes and Litigation Concerns for FedEx Customers
Individual customers who only use courier companies such as FedEx have a special refund path: FedEx has promised to refund the relevant amount to shippers and consumers who actually bear the customs duties, with the company handling all refund procedures on their behalf.
However, this commitment is merely a corporate statement and is not legally binding. Currently, consumers in Miami have filed a class-action lawsuit, demanding that the court force FedEx to fully refund their $36 in customs duties and related fees.
Where do corporate tax refunds go? It's difficult to pass on the benefits to the people; they're being retained to cope with new tariffs.
Once a company receives a refund, it is highly unlikely that it will offer substantial discounts to end customers.
On the one hand, importers have no legal obligation to pass on refunds to downstream customers. Tariff costs are already embedded in the pricing system along with factors such as supply chain fluctuations, exchange rate changes, and demand adjustments, making it extremely difficult to accurately calculate the amount of refunds.
On the other hand, some companies will retain refund funds to cope with the current new global tariffs and potential future tariff policies.
Only the legal risks brought about by class-action lawsuits may force a few companies to share refunds. For example, eyewear giant Essilor is facing a consumer lawsuit for alleged unjust enrichment.
Beneficiary industries and companies: Technology and manufacturing lead the way, with thousands of companies submitting applications.
In terms of beneficiaries, the technology, media and telecommunications, and industrial manufacturing sectors will receive the largest amount of refunds, followed by the consumer goods, automotive, and pharmaceutical sectors.
The U.S. Court of International Trade has accepted more than 3,000 refund cases, with many well-known companies such as Costco, Revlon, Toyota, Xerox, and Goodyear submitting applications.
Detailed refund process: CBP processes refunds on Mondays, with electronic payments arriving in 60-90 days.
Regarding the refund process, CBP will receive electronic forms of import goods lists submitted by companies on Monday, prioritizing applications for outstanding customs declarations and those within 80 days of final confirmation of tariffs, covering approximately 63% of IEEPA tariffs. Refunds will be disbursed electronically within 60-90 days.
Companies need to comprehensively assess the cascading impact of this event on taxation, transfer pricing, and accounting, rather than focusing solely on the trade aspect.
Trump's subsequent tariff strategy: Judicial checks and balances are insufficient to prevent trade protectionism, and the tariff system will be rapidly restructured.
Trump's follow-up tariff strategy: Switching legal tools and restructuring the tariff system
The Supreme Court ruling did not end Trump's tariff policies; instead, it prompted him to quickly switch legal tools and restructure the tariff system. The core objective was to circumvent IEEPA restrictions and restore or even strengthen existing tariffs. The specific strategies are clearly discernible:
Emergency measure: 15% global temporary tariff fills the policy gap
On the same day as the ruling, Trump signed an executive order imposing a 10% temporary tariff on global goods under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The following day, he raised the tariff to 15%. This section allows the president to impose temporary tariffs for up to 150 days to reduce the trade deficit, serving as an emergency tool to replace IEEPA. It officially took effect on February 24, directly filling the policy gap left by the cancellation of the original illegal tariffs.
Clear objective: Restore pre-ruling tariff levels by early July.
In early July, the Trump administration made it clear that it would use its legal authority, including Section 301 (unfair trade investigation) and Section 232 (national security tariffs), to restore tariffs to the levels before the Supreme Court ruling.
Compared to the more controversial IEEPA, Sections 301 and 232 have a more solid legal foundation and are core tools of traditional US trade protection. They can impose high tariffs on specific countries and industries for a long period of time, thus completely avoiding the legal risks in this case.
Long-term logic: Reliance on traditional terms, trade frictions become the norm.
Trump's tariff strategy, which has been characterized by persistent tariff pressure and normalized trade frictions, remains fundamentally unchanged: to use tariffs as leverage to reduce the trade deficit and protect domestic industries.
Going forward, there will be greater reliance on traditional tariff provisions such as Sections 232 and 301, with targeted taxation of key sectors such as steel, aluminum, automobiles, and technology products. Meanwhile, temporary tariff tools will be retained for flexible rate adjustments. Even after refunds are issued, the new tariffs will be implemented simultaneously, and import costs for businesses will remain volatile.
Market Impact: Increased policy uncertainty puts pressure on both businesses and consumers.
Increased policy uncertainty and ongoing market competition, coupled with the overlap of tariff refunds and new tariffs, will lead to continuous adjustments in US import costs and supply chain layouts. The dollar exchange rate and commodity prices will also be affected by trade policy disruptions.
For consumers, the new tariffs will further drive up prices, and even class-action lawsuits will hardly offset the cost pressures brought by the tariffs. For multinational companies, they will have to deal with both refund processes and new tariffs at the same time, significantly increasing the pressure on compliance and cost control.
Summarize:
The $166 billion tariff refund was a cleanup measure for Trump's illegal IEEPA tariffs. He has since completed a "legal transformation" of his tariff policy by switching legal tools, restarting traditional trade terms, and implementing temporary global tariffs.
Judicial checks and balances only limit the way the president exercises tariff authority; they do not change the core direction of US trade protectionism. The global tariff war will continue, and trade policy uncertainty will become a core variable in the medium to long term.
- Risk Warning and Disclaimer
- The market involves risk, and trading may not be suitable for all investors. This article is for reference only and does not constitute personal investment advice, nor does it take into account certain users’ specific investment objectives, financial situation, or other needs. Any investment decisions made based on this information are at your own risk.
