Since the recent court decisions and the launch of the CAPE system, the recovery of unlawfully collected U.S. tariffs is no longer merely an abstract topic of discussion. For companies that have sold goods into the United States, practical questions now arise as to how additional tariffs paid under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) can be reclaimed, who is entitled to file the claim, and which procedural steps must be observed. Up front: refunds are not made automatically, but only upon application through the ACE portal to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and within procedural limits.
First, a distinction must be drawn between the various U.S. “tariff programmes.” The current refund process concerns only those additional tariffs that were based on the IEEPA. It does not cover the sectoral measures that remain in place, such as the Section 232 tariffs or the China-related Section 301 tariffs. The current global additional tariffs under Section 122 are likewise not part of the IEEPA refund process, although they are currently also being challenged in court. Companies must therefore first examine very precisely which duty was actually paid and on what legal basis the tariff was imposed.
The leading judgment opens the door to a claim
The basis for the refund is the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court of 20 February 2026, in which the highest U.S. court ruled that the President did not have the authority to impose tariffs on the basis of the IEEPA. This judgment only became practically relevant, however, through the subsequent decisions and orders of the Court of International Trade (CIT) and the procedural solution now implemented by the U.S. customs authorities. After Atmus Filtration withdrew its action, Euro-Notions Florida is now the lead case before the CIT in the proceedings against the IEEPA tariffs. The change of lead case had no material impact. As had already happened in the Atmus Filtration case, CBP was instructed, in the Euro-Notions Florida case, by the presiding judge, Richard Eaton, to develop a procedure through which the unlawfully collected IEEPA tariffs could be repaid. For this purpose, the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) system was developed. This is therefore not a voluntary goodwill arrangement on the part of the authority, but the implementation of a judicial directive. Although the CIT has expressly found that all IEEPA tariffs must be repaid (that is, entries not yet liquidated, those liquidated up to 180 days ago, and those finally liquidated more than 180 days ago), this does not happen automatically. Refunds are only made upon application.
The CAPE procedure
At the centre of the refund process is the new CAPE procedure (Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries). Refund applications have been able to be submitted through the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) portal since Monday (20 April 2026), with submission possible via a low-threshold CSV file referred to as the “CAPE Declaration,” containing a list of the affected entry numbers.
Particular attention should be paid, in Phase 1 of CAPE, to the applicable deadlines. CBP is currently only accepting, for the CAPE procedure, entries that have not yet been liquidated or entries liquidated no more than 80 days ago. The background to this is that CBP can, on its own initiative and voluntarily, reliquidate these entries within 90 days of liquidation. For entries whose liquidation took place more than 80 days ago, the only option (currently) remains to file a formal protest, in order to prevent the liquidation from becoming final. This route is relevant in particular for cases in which the 80-day threshold has already been exceeded but the 180-day period is still running. Careful attention must therefore be paid, when monitoring deadlines, to the specific liquidation dates of the relevant entries.
Post-Summary Corrections (PSCs) may expressly not be used for the refund of IEEPA tariffs.
As a refund target, CBP now provides a fairly concrete expectation: as a general rule, refunds are to be paid out 60 to 90 days after acceptance of the CAPE application.
Planned expansions of CAPE
CBP has announced expansions to CAPE in upcoming phases, under which further entries can be reclaimed through CAPE. This is intended to bring CBP into full compliance with the court’s order. Going forward, this is intended to include, among others, imports for which a protest has been filed, imports not captured in ACE or without a liquidation status, and imports that have already been finally liquidated (liquidation more than 180 days ago).
Who holds the claim, and who merely has an economic interest?
Only the Importer of Record (IOR) or the authorised customs broker who filed the customs entry is entitled to apply under CAPE. Economic exposure alone is not sufficient. It is important to note that the party entitled to file the refund claim and the party that bore the economic burden of the tariffs are not necessarily the same. If the company itself, or its U.S. subsidiary, is the Importer of Record, the direct claim against CBP generally lies with that entity. If, on the other hand, the U.S. customer is the importer, the German company may be economically burdened indirectly, but under public law it will generally lack standing to file its own application.
At a second stage, the question arises, under private law, of how a refund is to be allocated internally, or whether the contracting party is obliged to pursue a CAPE claim. This depends on the underlying contractual arrangements (in particular Incoterms, price adjustment and tariff allocation clauses, and hardship provisions). As a general rule, the contracting party that bore the economic burden of the IEEPA tariffs should also be entitled either to retain a tariff refund or to receive the proceeds of a refund collected by the other party. The contracts must be carefully reviewed in this regard.
Conclusion
CBP’s FAQs and supplementary CBP materials considerably sharpen the picture: IEEPA refunds are possible, but only through the formalised CAPE procedure. What matters is the formal role of the Importer of Record or of the filing licensed broker, structured submission via CSV, the provision of functioning ACH banking details, and careful monitoring of deadlines. CBP also states a payout timeframe of, as a rule, 60 to 90 days after acceptance of a refund application, and makes clear that Post-Summary Corrections are specifically not the correct route for these refunds.
For German companies, the consequence is therefore as follows: identify the affected entries, determine the formal importer, assess eligibility for a refund via CAPE, and carefully prepare the technical application. The private-law questions as to entitlement to retain the refund follow on from that.
Further guidance
