Overlooked No More: Downstream Businesses That Absorbed Tariff Costs May Be Entitled to a Refund

The Clock is Ticking: Non-Importers Have a Narrow Window to Pursue IEEPA Refund Claims After Recent Court Rulings

The Supreme Court's decision earlier this year carries enormous financial consequences for U.S. businesses, and many of them don't even know it yet. Following the ruling that struck down a sweeping set of tariffs, billions of dollars in potential refunds are now on the table. But the businesses with the most to gain are often the ones least aware that a claim is available to them.

The Court found that the government overstepped its authority when it imposed tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Those tariffs, rolled out by the Trump Administration and applied broadly to goods coming in from China, Canada, Mexico, and elsewhere, dominated trade news for well over a year. What is different now is that there is a legal route to get that money back.

The piece many businesses are missing is this: you don't have to have been the importer to have a claim. If your shipper passed those tariff costs down to you through higher prices, you may be entitled to recover that money. The problem is that importers receiving refunds from CBP are not always going to pass those funds along voluntarily. Several legal pathways exist, but the deadlines are tight and the clock is already running.

Tariff refund claims come with real complexity, but that is exactly what the Frost Law AZ team handles. If you are a business owner or importer trying to understand your options, call us at (602) 649-3887 or visit our tariff refunds page to schedule a consultation. Given how quickly these deadlines can close, waiting is not a strategy.

Here is a closer look at the key court decisions and what steps businesses can take to pursue a refund.

‍

The Court Cases That Changed Everything

In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the Supreme Court concluded that the President had exceeded his authority under IEEPA by imposing broad tariffs covering nearly the full scope of U.S. global imports. Brought alongside that case was V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, a consolidated action involving five small businesses and twelve states.

V.O.S. Selections was itself an Importer of Record¹ (“IOR”) that had paid duties directly to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”). The government's argument, however, was that two of the other plaintiffs, FishUSA and MicroKits, had no business being in court at all, since neither had personally imported the goods at issue. The Court of International Trade rejected that argument and refused to limit standing to importers alone.

To bring a claim in federal court under Article III of the Constitution, as determined by Supreme Court precedent, requires plaintiffs in federal court to have standing to sue. “The plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact—a concrete and imminent harm to a legally protected interest, like property or money— that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct, and likely to be redressed by the lawsuit.” That is the standard the Supreme Court laid out in Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U.S. 477, 489 (2023).

A business that never filed a customs entry can still make a compelling case that a tariff caused it real financial harm. Direct liability to CBP is not a prerequisite; what matters is whether the economic impact can be traced back to the business in a credible way. A non-importer may "fairly employ economic logic" to establish that a tariff caused a concrete injury, and courts have interpreted that "fair traceability" requirement broadly, recognizing that tariff costs rarely stay where they first land. See Invenergy Renewables LLC v. United States, 422 F. Supp. 3d 1255, 1273 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2019). Being priced out of critical components, or being forced to pause operations because input costs became unsustainable, are exactly the kinds of concrete harms that satisfy the standard — regardless of who actually wrote the check to CBP.

‍

The Real-World Hurdle: Getting the Refund to the Right Business

Having legal standing is one thing; actually getting a check is another. On March 4, 2026, in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, Judge Eaton ruled that “all importers of record whose entries were subject to IEEPA duties are entitled to the benefit of the Learning Resources decision.” The Court directed that all unliquidated² entries tied to IEEPA tariffs be processed without those duties applied, and that any liquidated³ entries not yet final be reliquidated⁴ accordingly.

Here is where things get complicated for downstream businesses. While V.O.S. Selections established that non-importers have standing to seek declaratory relief, the Atmus order channels the actual refund payments to Importers of Record, most likely through CBP's ACE database. The legal victory and the money do not automatically flow to the same place.

That gap is a serious problem for any business that absorbed tariff costs passed down by its shipper but was never the IOR on the entry. If your importer receives that refund and decides to keep it, you are not automatically made whole. The good news is that non-importers in that position are not without options.

‍

Breach of Contract

In most shipping arrangements, the customer pays estimated customs costs upfront, before duties are formally finalized. The importer handles the CBP filing — reporting the contents and declared value of the shipment — and those filings remain open to review or adjustment for up to a year from the date of entry. Once that period expires, the entry is considered liquidated, and the duty determination becomes final.

What many of these shipping contracts also include is language that addresses exactly the situation businesses now find themselves in. Pass-through and reimbursement clauses are standard features of many import agreements, and they typically say the same thing: if a tariff is later cut, reversed, or refunded, that savings has to come back to the customer. Where that language exists and an importer keeps the refund anyway, the legal exposure is straightforward — it is a breach of contract.

‍

Unjust Enrichment

Since CBP routes refund payments through the ACE system directly to the Importer of Record, the importer ends up holding money that may not rightfully belong to them. When a shipping contract has no explicit pass-through clause, that does not mean the downstream business is out of options. An unjust enrichment claim offers an alternative path. The argument is simple: the customer already reimbursed the importer for the full tariff cost when it paid its invoice. Letting the importer also collect the government refund means they get paid twice for the same expense, and that is precisely the kind of windfall that unjust enrichment law exists to prevent.

‍

Frost Law AZ Is Ready to Help With Your Tariff Refund

The window to act is open, but it will not stay that way. Now that IEEPA tariffs have been struck down as unconstitutional and the Court of International Trade is actively moving refunds forward, businesses that absorbed these costs need to take stock of where they stand and what routes are available to them.

Our team is tracking every development in this area of federal trade litigation in real time. The court decisions that have come down create a genuine opportunity for businesses to recover funds they never should have had to pay, and you do not need to wait for every legal detail to be settled before you start preparing. Getting ahead of the process now puts you in the strongest possible position when the time comes to move.

Contact Frost Law AZ at (602) 649-3887 or fill out our contact form to talk through your tariff refund options.