On April 20, 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) opened the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) portal, allowing importers of record to redeclare entries and seek refunds of International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs. Within the first week, roughly 15% of eligible entries had been redeclared and validated, and CBP began liquidating a portion of those claims, describing CAPE as “working successfully.” Refund payments are expected to begin on May 11.
From an operational standpoint, this has been a notable and efficient rollout by CBP. From a business and risk perspective, however, the more complex issues are only now coming into focus.
The Question Behind the Refund
Once refunds are received, the immediate compliance question gives way to a more difficult one: What obligations, expectations, or risks attach to the refunded amounts?
Many companies paid IEEPA tariffs directly and made subsequent pricing decisions that only partially reflected those costs. Others passed the tariffs through more explicitly, sometimes as discrete line items, sometimes embedded in broader pricing structures. Still others absorbed the costs entirely. Across those fact patterns, the treatment of refunded tariffs is far from straightforward.
The resulting uncertainty is already being debated in boardrooms and C‑suites, often without clear precedent or consensus.
Litigation, Optics, and Commercial Reality
The issue has moved quickly from theory to practice. Certain large shipping and logistics companies — which effectively act as customs brokers for many customers — publicly indicated that refunded IEEPA tariffs would be returned to those who originally bore the charges.[1] Despite those stated intentions, several have nonetheless become targets of class‑action litigation seeking to compel refunds.
The legal backdrop matters. In Winzler v. Toyota,[2] Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch, ruled that effective refund programs can render certain class actions moot when he was on the Tenth Circuit. That reasoning looms large in current discussions, but it does not eliminate risk. Litigation remains expensive, public, and reputationally fraught — even where outcomes may ultimately favor the company.
For companies that passed through only some portion of the tariffs, the situation is even more ambiguous. Pricing structures varied by customer, product, and contract. Some customers operate under negotiated agreements with pass‑through clauses; others do not. Demand letters are already circulating. The prospect of business‑to‑business disputes, parallel to consumer‑facing litigation, is no longer hypothetical.
When Compliance Collides With Reputation
The decision to retain refunded amounts or return them carries consequences beyond legal exposure. Defending litigation against customers — even successfully — can be costly, distracting, and damaging in ways that extend well beyond the balance sheet. Conversely, issuing refunds without a clear framework can create administrative burdens, inconsistent outcomes, and new risks of their own.
Companies that communicate clearly and commit early to orderly refund processes may avoid much of the reputational fallout that likely accompany tariff‑related disputes. Clarity of intent and execution will matter as much as legal positioning.
The Real Challenge Going Forward
IEEPA tariff refunds were always going to be more than a customs exercise. They implicate contract interpretation, consumer and commercial litigation risk, data limitations, customer relationships, and public perception — all at once.
Few organizations have billing systems that allow for clean, itemized reversal of historical tariff charges. Any refund or claims process will require disciplined analysis, defensible methodologies, and careful messaging.
As refunds begin to hit balance sheets, the hardest part of this process will not be receiving the funds. It will be deciding how to handle them — and living with that decision in courtrooms, customer relationships, and the public eye.
How Ankura Supports These Decisions
Navigating IEEPA tariff refunds requires more than technical compliance. It demands coordination between legal, finance, operations, and communications functions — often under public and commercial scrutiny.
Ankura supports organizations in evaluating tariff pass‑throughs, quantifying refund exposure, designing claims or refund processes, and managing the associated operational and reputational risks. The goal is not simply to process refunds, but to do so in a way that is defensible, proportionate, and aligned with broader business objectives.
References
[1] https://www.fedex.com/en-us/shipping/international/us-tariffs-impact.html; https://www.ups.com/us/en/supplychain/logistics-solutions/customs-brokerage/us-customs-tariff-refunds; https://www.dhl.com/global-en/microsites-2-0/core/us-tariffs.html#:~:text=22%20April%202026,as%20Importer%20of%20Record%20(IOR)
[2] Winzler v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., 681 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2012)
© Copyright 2026. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of Ankura Consulting Group, LLC, its management, its subsidiaries, its affiliates, or its other professionals. Ankura is not a law firm and cannot provide legal advice.
