Importers who paid tariffs later struck down by courts are still waiting on the vast majority of the money owed to them. Of roughly $166 billion in disputed duties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has directed the Treasury to return just $20.6 billion so far. The agency has accepted $85 billion in refund applications for processing, leaving tens of billions more in limbo as the government prepares to fight a court order that could open the floodgates to every affected business.
Why $145 billion in unpaid refunds is squeezing importers right now
The gap between what has been refunded and what is owed tells the story. CBP has directed Treasury to issue $20.6 billion in refunds, but the agency accepted $85 billion in applications for processing, and the total obligation runs far higher. That means companies across sectors from retail to manufacturing have billions of dollars locked in government accounts rather than circulating through supply chains, payrolls, and inventory orders.
For import-heavy businesses, those frozen funds can translate into tighter credit, delayed hiring, and postponed capital investments. Many firms treated the struck-down tariffs as a temporary cash drain they would eventually recover, only to discover that the refund pipeline is far slower and more uncertain than expected. Smaller importers, which tend to have thinner cash cushions and fewer financing options, are feeling the squeeze most acutely as they wait for decisions on claims already filed.
The Trump administration plans to appeal a court order that would allow all importers who paid the struck-down tariffs to seek refunds. Judge Richard K. Eaton is overseeing the case, and a June 9 hearing will test whether the government can slow or stop the refund process. If the appeal fails, the number of new claims filed through CBP’s system could spike in the weeks that follow, putting additional pressure on an agency already processing an enormous backlog.
That legal uncertainty is prompting some companies to adopt a wait-and-see strategy, holding off on new refund filings until they have more clarity. Others are racing to get claims into the queue in case the government later persuades a higher court to narrow eligibility. The result is a patchwork of risk calculations that depend as much on legal strategy as on logistics or trade flows.
How CBP’s new CAPE system handles IEEPA refund claims
To manage the volume, CBP launched a dedicated filing tool. The agency’s CSMS notice number 68315804 introduced the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries system, known as CAPE, specifically for refunds tied to duties imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. CAPE went live on April 20, 2026, giving importers a single portal to submit and track claims rather than navigating older, fragmented filing methods.
Within CAPE, importers can associate refund requests with specific entry numbers and tariff lines, upload supporting documentation, and monitor status updates. CBP has also updated its ACE portal enrollment and electronic refund processes to route approved payments through ACH transfers more quickly. Those operational changes signal the agency expects claim volume to grow, not shrink.
Yet the public record contains no data on average processing times or rejection rates for the $85 billion in applications already in the pipeline, making it difficult for businesses to plan around expected payout dates. Trade compliance teams are left to infer likely timelines from informal contacts and prior experience with other CBP programs, introducing further uncertainty into cash-flow forecasts.
CBP’s broader guidance on trade programs, compliance requirements, and electronic filing is spread across its main agency website, but none of the available materials clearly explains how refund claims tied to the invalidated tariffs will be prioritized against other enforcement and revenue-collection duties. Without more transparency, importers must assume that their claims are competing for limited staff time with routine audits, penalty cases, and other mission-critical work.
What the June 9 hearing means for unresolved refund claims
The central unresolved question is whether the government can limit who qualifies for refunds. The administration’s planned appeal directly challenges the breadth of the court order. If Judge Eaton sides with importers at the June 9 hearing, the legal path widens for every business that paid the voided tariffs to file through CAPE, and the $85 billion already accepted for processing could grow substantially within 60 days. Tracking subsequent CBP notices and ACE portal transaction data after that date will show whether the system can absorb the demand.
No primary CBP document explains how the $166 billion total obligation was calculated or how it breaks down by tariff category. That missing detail matters because it determines how many additional importers could file and how large the remaining liability actually is. Without a breakdown by product type or time period, companies cannot easily benchmark their own potential refunds against the aggregate numbers now driving the public debate.
For now, businesses face a three-part challenge: navigating an evolving legal landscape, mastering a relatively new filing system, and managing cash flow in the absence of clear processing benchmarks. The June 9 hearing will not resolve every question, but it will signal whether the courts intend to keep the refund window wide open or allow the government to narrow it. Until that signal arrives-and until CBP releases more detail on how it is handling the current backlog-importers will continue to operate in a climate of uncertainty, with tens of billions of dollars still stuck between court rulings and corporate balance sheets.
Warren Cohen is a finance writer based in Phoenix, Arizona, covering personal finance topics including credit, banking, and beginner investing. He earned his degree in business administration from Arizona State University and began his career working in consumer finance, where he gained direct experience with lending and credit systems. He now writes for personal finance websites and fintech platforms, focusing on clear, practical content that helps readers make informed financial decisions.
