As President Trump’s second term continues to reshape U.S. trade policy, importers face a rapidly evolving tariff landscape. Sweeping and significant tariffs have been imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act on imports from all U.S. trading partners and under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 on imports of steel, aluminum, copper, automobiles, and auto parts (see summary of related actions below).

However, there are multiple legal challenges underway to the IEEPA tariffs and government policy regarding implementation of both kinds of tariffs continues to evolve. Importers should therefore act quickly to preserve their rights to potential refunds should the courts ultimately invalidate some or all of the tariffs.

J.W. Allen & Company strongly urges all Importers to internally review the following guidance regarding legal challenges to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). In light of potential refunds that may result from this matter, J.W. Allen & Company, strongly urges Importer’s to seek Customs Counsel for official guidance and legal support as needed. If and when the time comes for the filing of potential refunds, J.W. Allen & Company, Inc. will be positioned to assist.

Liquidation of Entries Subject to Tariffs

Liquidation is the process by which U.S. Customs and Border Protection finalizes the determination of duties, taxes, and fees owed on imported goods.
Under 19 USC 1504 CBP must liquidate an entry within one year of the date of entry (or other applicable actions) and the typical liquidation cycle is about 314 days. This period can be (1) extended for up to four years if CBP needs more information for proper classification or valuation or the importer requests an extension and shows good cause, (2) suspended indefinitely pending administrative or legal review, or (3) shortened; e.g., if CBP issues a CF 29 notice of action or adverse decision on a post-summary correction that includes a duty increase, the affected entry(ies) liquidate shortly thereafter, often within weeks. Entries not liquidated or extended/suspended by CBP within this timeframe are automatically liquidated at the duty rate, value, and quantity declared by the importer with no formal notice.

Entries of goods subject to IEEPA and/or Section 232 tariffs imposed by the Trump administration may have already liquidated or may be liquidated soon. Some of these tariffs were imposed as early as March, while others have taken effect at various times since then.

Monitoring and Filing Protests

However, multiple lawsuits are challenging the legality of Trump’s IEEPA-based tariffs (see details below). If the courts ultimately invalidate these tariffs importers may be eligible for refunds of tariffs paid —but potentially only if they preserve their rights through timely protests. Protests could also be filed to challenge the administration’s implementation of Section 232 tariffs (the legality of which was largely upheld during the first Trump administration).

Importers can file a protest within 180 days of liquidation relating to classification, value, duty treatment, and other issues, including situations where the importer was required by CBP to act in a certain fashion. To do this effectively, however, importers must monitor the dates their entries are liquidated in the Automated Commercial Environment.

Issues related to IEEPA and Section 232 tariffs that importers must watch for in their liquidations, and file timely protests to preserve their right to potential tariff refunds if necessary, include the following.

In-transit exemptions. CBP has said that only ocean vessel shipments qualify for in-transit exemptions under most IEEPA tariffs. CBP has indicated that goods transferred between a feeder or relay vessel and a master vessel, even if entirely transported by vessel and clearly destined to the U.S. via a through bill of lading, are not exempt. With no precedent for this interpretation, this represents a significant protest opportunity, particularly if the courts uphold the IEEPA tariffs.

Chapter 98 exemptions. Some of CBP’s Centers of Excellence and Expertise have rejected HTSUS Chapter 98 claims that could be eligible for duty-free treatment. Claims under HTSUS 9801.00.10 (U.S. and foreign goods returned), for instance, require detailed documentation proving prior export and unchanged condition. With sufficient evidence, such duty-free claims could be viable.

Value content. CBP applies Section 232 tariffs based on the actual steel, aluminum, or copper content of products. Importers who overstated content, or who question CBP’s assessment, should file protests to correct the record and seek refunds.

Country of origin/USMCA. CBP’s Centers have inconsistently handled claims for preferential treatment under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, in some cases requiring section 1520(d) claims, post-summary corrections, or both, for refunds and often denying requests. In other cases Centers have revised the COO of certain entries without first requesting clarifying or supporting information, resulting in higher tariff rates.

Tariff stacking. Refunds for stacked tariffs (when imports are subject to multiple tariffs) are possible under an administration policy specifying that in such cases only one tariff applies. Protest refund opportunities exist due to these changes and due to retroactive stacking; e.g., excluding IEEPA fentanyl-related tariffs where Section 232 auto, steel, or aluminum tariffs apply on previously-entered non-USMCA-qualifying imports.

De minimis. The repeal of the $800 de minimis exemption means all low-value shipments are dutiable as of Aug. 29. Importers who misclassify entries, overvalue, or fail to apply proper exemptions may need to protest to correct duty assessments.

Date of entry. With the sudden implementation of increased tariffs, importers may have faced a highly unfavorable tariff rate that did not exist a day or two before or after the date of entry. Importers may be able to file protests to claim an earlier or later entry date based on the cargo’s date of arrival and/or filing of entry documentation.
Informational materials. Certain goods (e.g., publications, films, artworks) qualify for tariff exemptions but CBP has denied some claims due to misclassification. Protests provide duty refund opportunities, particularly now that CBP has issued rulings providing guidance on this exemption.

FTZ/TIB. Goods entered into foreign-trade zones or under temporary importation bonds may be exempt from IEEPA tariffs, but errors in entry type or timing may require protests to correct duty treatment.

Steps to Take Now!

With liquidation deadlines for entries subject to IEEPA and Section 232 tariffs approaching and legal challenges pending, importers should quickly take the following measures to protect their rights to potential tariff refunds. It is important to note that once an entry is liquidated and the liquidation becomes final, CBP will likely contend that regardless of the ultimate outcome of the IEEPA litigation no refund of duties paid is required.

• review customs data (obtainable through the Automated Commercial Environment) to identify affected entries
• track liquidation dates for all entries, especially those from early 2025
• request extensions of liquidation (which may be granted for up to three years at CBP’s discretion) and verify with CBP if and when such extensions are granted
• file protests within 180 days of liquidation
• request that any protests filed be stayed pending the outcome of the IEEPA tariff litigation
• file suit in the Court of International Trade for any protests that are denied to prevent liquidation from becoming final
• document all claims thoroughly, including exemption eligibility

ST&R has substantial experience helping companies with all of these measures. Contact us at tariffs@strtrade.com for more information.

Summary of Trump-Era Tariffs

IEEPA Tariffs

Tariffs related to fentanyl trafficking and immigration

• effective March 7, a 10 percent tariff on energy and energy resources from Canada (including potash)
• a 25 percent tariff on imports of all other products of Canada (except goods qualifying for duty-free treatment under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement) that was effective March 4 through July 31 and was increased to 35 percent as of Aug. 1
• effective March 7, a 25 percent tariff on imports from Mexico (except for (1) goods qualifying for duty-free treatment under the USMCA and (2) potash, which is subject to a 10 percent tariff)
• a 10 percent tariff on imports from China and Hong Kong that was effective Feb. 4 through March 3 and was increased to 20 percent as of March 4
  “Reciprocal” tariffs
• tariff ostensibly related to individual trade deficits were ten percent from April 5 through April 8, 10 to 49 percent on April 9 and 10, ten percent again from April 11 through July 31, and then 15 to 41 percent from Aug. 1 to the present
• a tariff on imports from China that was 34 percent from April 5 through April 9, 84 percent on April 9, 125 percent from April 10 through May 13, and 10 percent from May 14 to the present

Tariffs on Brazil

• effective Aug. 6, a 40 percent tariff on imports from Brazil imposed in response to Brazilian government policies and actions harming the U.S. economy and foreign policy (numerous exceptions exist, and this tariff is in additional to the reciprocal tariff)

Tariffs on India

• effective Aug. 27, a 25 percent tariff on imports from India (in addition to the reciprocal tariff) in response to its continued importation of oil and oil products from Russia

Section 232 Tariffs

Section 232 authorizes tariffs when imports threaten national security. Section 232 actions in 2025 include the following.

• effective March 12 (1) 25 percent tariffs on steel and steel derivative products were extended to imports from all countries and (2) 10 percent tariffs on aluminum and aluminum derivative products were increased to 25 percent and extended to all countries
• effective June 4, tariffs on steel and aluminum and derivative products were increased to 50 percent (except for the United Kingdom, which remains at 25 percent)
• effective Aug. 1, 50 percent tariffs were imposed on imports of copper and its derivatives
• effective Aug. 18, tariffs on steel and aluminum were extended to 407 additional HTSUS numbers

Legal Challenges to IEEPA Tariffs

Multiple ongoing lawsuits are challenging the legality of Trump’s IEEPA-based tariffs. (Section 232 tariffs were largely upheld in federal court during the first Trump administration.)

In V.O.S. Selections v. Trump (which was consolidated with State of Oregon v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security) the Court of International Trade overturned the “reciprocal” tariffs by ruling that the president is not authorized to impose unbounded tariffs under IEEPA, and the fentanyl- and immigration-related tariffs by ruling that they do not directly deal with the related identified threats. However, this decision was stayed and the tariffs continue to be collected. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in the Trump administration’s appeal of the CIT decision in July and could issue a decision in a few months. A petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court is anticipated following the CAFC’s decision.

In Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an even more expansive ruling, asserting that IEEPA doesn’t authorize the president to impose tariffs at all. The court subsequently stayed this decision (meaning the tariffs can continue to be imposed) pending an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Other cases challenging the IEEPA tariffs in full or in part have been filed at the CIT or in federal district court. These largely remain on hold pending final resolution of the above cases.

If the courts ultimately invalidate the IEEPA tariffs, importers may be eligible for refunds of tariffs paid —but potentially only if they preserve their rights through timely protests.

This information is complements of NCBFAA Customs Counsel and our Friends at Sandler, Travis, and Rosenberg, P.A..