Trade compliance strategy: Importers need a refund, tariff, and enforcement plan

What changed for importers managing IEEPA duty refunds?

IEEPA duty refunds have moved from a fast-moving recovery opportunity into a process that requires closer tracking, stronger data, and more realistic timing expectations.

United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has described CAPE as a phased process designed to consolidate IEEPA duty refunds, including interest, rather than processing refunds one entry at a time. Phase 1 has focused on certain unliquidated entries and certain entries within 80 days of liquidation, with later functionality designed for more complex scenarios.

The issue for importers is that a refund request moving through CAPE doesn’t necessarily mean cash will arrive immediately. Refund activity may slow because of volume, manual review, reconciliation issues, offsets, or questions tied to other duty programs. Some importers may see partial refunds rather than the full amount they expected.

That means refund work must include more than filing. Reconcile expected refunds against actual payments, identify offsets, and track whether entries remain in refund status or move back into review.

Refund issues for importers to monitor

• Partial refunds: A smaller-than-expected payment may reflect offsets, Section 232 issues, antidumping or countervailing duty (AD/CVD) complications, tax debts, or other government claims.
• Returned review status: Some entries may appear to move toward refund and then return to review, especially when CBP identifies issues that require another look.
• Reconciliation timing: Entries flagged for reconciliation may follow different CAPE timing and may require importers to prioritize reconciliation deadlines.
• Data quality: Entry-level errors in valuation, origin, Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) classification, duty stacking, or duty calculation can delay or reduce refunds.
• Treasury timing: Even after refund activity appears in reporting, payment timing can vary, especially when volume increases.

The biggest mistake is treating the refund process like found money. Instead, treat it like a compliance process with cash-flow impact.

Why do liquidation dates and protests matter?

Liquidation dates matter because they can affect whether importers preserve the ability to recover IEEPA duties if the refund process, litigation, or agency guidance changes.

The key concern is procedural. Importers with entries approaching or past liquidation-related windows may want to consider evaluating protest options. A protest can help preserve rights while the broader refund and litigation process continues. The right path depends on the entry population, refund amount, liquidation status, and risk tolerance.

This is especially important for importers that haven’t finished reviewing entries or haven’t filed refund requests. Waiting can create avoidable risk when entries move further through the liquidation process.

Practical refund-rights questions to answer now

1. Which entries have already liquidated?
2. Which entries are approaching key liquidation or protest deadlines?
3. Which entries have been submitted through CAPE?
4. Which entries are excluded from current CAPE functionality because of reconciliation, drawback, AD/CVD, or other complexity?
5. Which expected refunds are large enough to justify legal review or case participation?
6. Which entries may contain classification, valuation, origin, Section 232, or stacking issues that require correction before filing?

Importers don’t need to have every answer internally. They do require a clear process to identify where money is at risk, where timing is tight, and where professional advice may be beneficial.

Why is Section 232 derivative litigation important?

Section 232 derivative litigation matters because it could affect a large amount of duty exposure and may influence future refund processes.

Section 232 duties and derivative products have created complex questions around value, content, classification, duty stacking, and refund offsets. If courts limit or reject certain derivative applications, importers may need clean data to support refund claims or corrections. If the government prevails, importers may still need to defend how they calculated and reported Section 232 duties.

Either outcome creates work. Importers need entry data that supports the position taken at the time of import and can withstand later review. That includes backup for HTS classification, country of origin, product content, valuation, and any claimed exclusions or special treatment.

Avoid reactive changes that create new scrutiny. Changing HTS classifications, valuation practices, or origin positions midstream without support can draw attention from CBP. If a classification or valuation position needs to change, the company needs documentation that explains why.

Why is customs enforcement becoming a bigger importer risk?

Customs enforcement is becoming a bigger risk because the government is combining policy pressure, technology, and new enforcement tools.

The June 3, 2026, executive order on strengthening customs enforcement directed a broader focus on customs compliance, importer responsibility, bond rules, and enforcement against entities that evade duty obligations. CBP has also described updates to bond rules, good-standing expectations, and import privileges as part of the enforcement shift.

For importers, this points to deeper scrutiny in several areas:

• Importer of record status
• Nonresident importer activity
• Customs broker due diligence
• Power of attorney validation
• Valuation
• Country of origin
• HTS classification
• Bond sufficiency
• Forced labor exposure
• AD/CVD risk
• Refund claims and offsets

AI-enabled targeting tools may also make enforcement more data-driven. When systems can compare patterns across entries, suppliers, countries, HTS codes, declared values, and duty programs, inconsistencies may surface faster.

The practical message is direct: know what your data says before CBP asks questions.

How should companies reassess DDP and nonresident importer models?

Companies using delivered duty paid (DDP) terms or nonresident importer models will benefit from revisiting how much control they have over customs activity.

DDP can be convenient, especially when a foreign supplier offers to handle importation. But convenience can come with reduced visibility. If your company isn’t the importer of record, you may have limited access to entry data, limited control over classification and valuation, and limited ability to recover refunds. You may also discover that customs activity tied to your goods doesn’t align with your expectations.

Nonresident importer models are also facing more scrutiny. The enforcement order and related agency direction point toward greater accountability for foreign entities importing into the United States, including potential questions around assets, bonds, ownership transparency, compliance standing, and broker responsibility.

Questions to ask before keeping a DDP model

1. Why is the company using DDP for this supply chain?
2. Who is the importer of record?
3. Who controls HTS classification, valuation, and country-of-origin decisions?
4. Who has access to entry data in ACE?
5. Who can pursue refunds if duties are later reduced or invalidated?
6. Does the foreign supplier have a meaningful United States presence?
7. Is the customs broker performing appropriate due diligence?
8. Would a different Incoterms model give the company better control?

DDP may still make sense in some business models. But it’s important to choose it with open eyes, not out of habit.

What role does ACE play in trade compliance strategy?

Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) is becoming a core trade management tool, not just a government portal. For companies building a stronger trade compliance strategy, ACE provides the visibility needed to monitor entry activity, support refund claims, track liquidation status, and respond to customs enforcement.

Importers that don’t have ACE access may be relying on brokers, suppliers, or fragmented internal reports to understand their own import activity. That can create problems when the company needs to confirm refund eligibility, review liquidation status, identify broker activity, reconcile duty exposure, or respond to enforcement questions.

ACE can help importers see entry activity across brokers, identify unexpected importer-of-record activity, pull liquidation reports, monitor refund-related data, and review the data that CBP may use to evaluate compliance. That visibility becomes more important as tariffs expand and enforcement intensifies.

Companies that use only one broker may still benefit from ACE. Companies that use multiple brokers, DDP suppliers, nonresident importer structures, or high-volume entry processes may need it even more.

Trade leaders can also use ACE data to communicate with finance, procurement, legal, tax, and executives. A weekly or periodic internal update based on actual entry data can turn trade from a reactive function into a business planning input.

How can a trade compliance strategy support business decisions?

A proactive trade compliance strategy can create more value when it connects directly to sourcing, pricing, cash flow, supplier management, and executive decision-making.

For years, many businesses treated trade compliance as an end-of-process checkpoint. The trade team often received decisions after sourcing, product design, contracting, or pricing had already been set. That approach becomes expensive when tariff rates change quickly, refunds require precise data, and enforcement focuses on the full import record.

A more strategic model brings trade into planning earlier. Before the company changes suppliers, adjusts sourcing, shifts countries, launches a new product, accepts DDP terms, or enters a new market, trade leaders can help assess duty impact, classification, origin, valuation, forced labor risk, broker capacity, bond sufficiency, and documentation requirements.

Areas where trade can inform business decisions

• Sourcing: Compare supplier options using tariff exposure, origin rules, forced labor risk, and documentation quality.
• Pricing: Build tariff scenarios into customer pricing, margin analysis, and contract terms.
• Cash flow: Track potential refunds, duty increases, bond needs, and delayed payments.
• Supplier management: Require better upstream visibility into materials, manufacturing locations, and ownership.
• Broker oversight: Establish communication routines, audit expectations, and escalation paths.
• Executive reporting: Translate trade developments into financial exposure, timing, and operational risk.

The next phase of trade policy will likely reward companies that can move quickly without guessing. That requires accurate data, clear ownership, and a practical plan for refunds, protests, tariffs, and enforcement.

It isn’t necessary to solve every uncertainty at once. A practical next step is to identify the entries, suppliers, duty programs, and business decisions most exposed to change, then build a process to monitor and act before deadlines or enforcement activity create fewer options.