What Comes Next: Phase 2, Consumer Class Actions, and the Year Ahead in Tariff Refunds

The CAPE portal went live this morning, but today’s launch is only the first chapter. The architecture CBP has built handles the cleanest 63 percent of refund claims. The remaining 37 percent — along with the entirely separate question of whether consumers will ever see money back — will define the rest of 2026.

The 37 percent problem

Phase 1 of CAPE, the phase that launched today, is bounded by two conditions: the entry must be unliquidated, or it must have been liquidated within the 80 days preceding April 20. Both conditions reflect CBP’s effort to start with the technically simpler cases.

Flexport’s president Sanne Manders, speaking to CBS News, quantified the limit: The first phase will account for an estimated 63% of IEEPA tariffs.¹ That leaves approximately 37 percent — tens of billions of dollars — in entries that have been liquidated for more than 80 days and are therefore outside Phase 1.

Three groups of importers are affected:

• Businesses whose first IEEPA entries were filed in early 2025 and liquidated in late 2025 or early 2026.
• Businesses with entries that had complex adjustments — protests, drawback claims, post-summary corrections — that pushed them into categories CAPE Phase 1 explicitly excludes.
• Larger importers whose entry histories include antidumping or countervailing duty complications.

CBP has been deliberately noncommittal about Phase 2 timing. Norton Rose Fulbright wrote in its client briefing: It is not clear at this point when the next phase(s) of CAPE will be implemented, but we anticipate the processing of those claims will take longer than those during the first phase.²

FreightFigures reported a similar industry expectation: CBP has not yet announced firm dates for Phase 2 or Phase 3, but industry sources expect the rollout to continue through the summer and into the fall of 2026.³

The protest strategy — and why lawyers are still filing them

For entries liquidated more than 80 days ago but less than 180 days ago, importers have a second path that runs parallel to CAPE. They can file a CBP protest under 19 U.S.C. § 1514, which is the formal administrative mechanism for disputing a liquidation. The protest window is 180 days from liquidation.

Time magazine reported the working consensus among trade specialists: Some advisors suggest that importers continue to file protests for imports that were liquidated more than 80 days ago but within the 180-day window.¹

Pete Mento, the Baker Tilly customs broker, explained the rationale in remarks Time quoted: Because it preserves your rights. You can always withdraw later. You can’t go back and file one after the window closes.¹

For entries already past 180 days, the remaining path is litigation at the U.S. Court of International Trade. Since the February ruling, CBS News reported, companies have filed thousands of lawsuits with the Court of International Trade (CIT) seeking tariff refunds.⁴ Those lawsuits are expected to feed into Phase 2 once the technology is ready.

The consumer question

Of the tens of millions of Americans who paid IEEPA-related line-item charges on imported consumer goods over the past year, none can file a CAPE Declaration directly. The refund program is structured entirely around the importer of record.

The Associated Press captured the two parallel tracks consumers now face: one through the carriers, one through the courts. The system starting up Monday will refund tariffs directly to the businesses that paid them, which are not obligated to share the proceeds with customers. However, class-action lawsuits that aim to force companies, ranging from Costco to Ray-Ban maker Essilor Luxottica, to reimburse shoppers are winding their way through the U.S. courts.⁵

Two large parcel carriers have made public commitments to pass refunds through. FedEx stated: Supporting our customers as they navigate regulatory changes remains our top priority. We are working with our customers as CBP begins processing refunds and plan to begin filing claims on April 20.⁵

A March 2026 report in CBS News referenced FedEx as one of several major corporations, including Bausch & Lomb, Dyson, FedEx and L’Oreal, that have sued the federal government directly for refunds.⁶ FedEx specifically has also pledged to refund shippers and consumers who paid the charges if the business is ultimately made whole.⁶

The class-action tracks are more uncertain. They depend on whether retailers who passed IEEPA tariff costs through to consumers will be required to pass the refunds back. The legal theory — that the retailer collected an unlawful tax and must remit — is strong in principle but untested at scale. Final resolution of those suits is likely a year or more away.

Congress weighs in

Separately, the Senate has introduced the Tariff Refund Act of 2026 (S.3905), which would create a statutory 180-day refund deadline, require periodic reporting to Senate committees, and direct CBP to coordinate with the Small Business Administration on outreach.

The operative language of the bill: The Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall, not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, refund, with interest, to each importer of a covered article all duties imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.⁷

The bill also contains a non-binding sense of Congress provision — a finding, essentially — that larger importers should pass on the refunds to their customers, including small businesses and families impacted by those duties.⁷ It is aspirational language, not a legal requirement. But it hints at the political dynamic that will shape enforcement over the next year.

The trade policy aftermath

Beyond refunds, the Supreme Court’s February ruling has reshaped the underlying tariff architecture. The consulting firm EY summarized the new landscape in a March client memo: Businesses are navigating a fast moving tariff landscape shaped by legal shifts, new trade actions and global responses. To stay resilient, organizations must strengthen data discipline, protect potential refund opportunities, align accounting treatments with evolving rules, monitor policy developments at home and abroad, and reinforce supply chain and contractual frameworks.⁸

Two things have already happened:

Section 122 has taken effect. The administration imposed a new 10 percent tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, effective for entries filed on or after February 24, 2026 — four days after the Supreme Court ruling. Section 122 is a distinct statutory authority and is not subject to refund. Importers should expect this layer to persist.

Section 301 and Section 232 remain untouched. Yoopya News’s summary of the refund scope: Duties imposed under traditional tools such as Section 301 (China trade actions) and Section 232 (steel and aluminum) remain in place unless separately challenged.⁹

Penn Wharton’s analysis put a number on the long-term revenue effect: Unless replaced by another source, future tariff revenue collections will fall by half.¹⁰ That projection assumes no successor authority is enacted and has significant implications for both federal revenue and the policy tools available to any future administration wishing to use tariffs as a trade lever.

The second-order effects: hedge funds, consumer prices, and supply chains

The refund program is already producing ripples beyond its immediate participants.

A claims market has emerged. Time magazine: Some hedge funds are offering to buy businesses’ tariff refund claims. That would mean importers can get paid immediately without going through the potentially onerous process of applying for a refund, although in at least some cases it would mean selling the refunds at a discount.¹ For smaller importers needing working capital, the discount can be the difference between solvency and crisis. For larger importers with patient capital, it is almost always dilutive.

Consumer prices may adjust slowly. Time’s report observed: While consumers have paid higher prices over the past year due to Trump’s tariffs, they are not eligible to apply directly for refunds. However, with the IEEPA tariffs struck down, consumers may see some lower costs of imported goods going forward.¹ The downward price adjustment is unlikely to be uniform; it will be fastest in categories with thin retail margins and slowest in categories where the IEEPA surcharge was absorbed into menu pricing.

Supply-chain contracts are being rewritten. Every sophisticated importer is revisiting its customs, landed-cost, and price-adjustment clauses in commercial contracts. EY advised clients to strengthen contracts and supply chains now as a direct response to the ruling.⁸ The goal is to avoid a repeat of 2025, when companies absorbed surcharge costs without contractual mechanisms to pass them through.

A likely timeline for the next 12 months

The following is an educated projection based on the public statements of CBP, the CIT, and industry analysts cited throughout this report:

• April–June 2026: Phase 1 processing ramps up. First refunds arrive in importer bank accounts beginning in mid-to-late June (60 days after the earliest clean filings).
• Summer 2026: CBP announces Phase 2 scope. Carrier pass-through programs (FedEx, UPS) begin paying refunds to consumer shippers as their own CAPE claims settle.
• Fall 2026: Phase 2 launch covering older liquidated entries. CIT-filed cases begin settling in batches. First class-action rulings likely.
• End of 2026: Vast majority of Phase 1 and Phase 2 refunds paid. Tariff Refund Act of 2026 either enacted (imposing the 180-day deadline) or stalled.
• 2027: The final, most complex tranche — drawback-related entries, AD/CVD-complicated entries, litigated cases — processed through remaining CAPE phases and individual CIT judgments.

The bottom line

Phase 1 is a starting line, not a finish line. For importers, the right question today is not whether the refund system works — it is whether your organization is ready to file cleanly in it, and whether you have a strategy for the entries that fall outside of it.

For consumers, the right question is which of the carriers and retailers you bought from will ultimately return money, and over what timeline.

For the federal government, the right question is whether $166 billion can be refunded with interest without producing the kind of processing errors and delays that generate their own lawsuits.

None of those questions resolve on April 20. They resolve over the next twelve months.

---

Sources

1. Time Magazine, “How U.S. Businesses Can Apply for Tariff Refunds,” April 17, 2026.
2. Norton Rose Fulbright, “CBP issues tariff refund instructions,” April 2026.
3. FreightFigures, “CBP CAPE Tool Goes Live April 20, 2026,” April 2026.
4. CBS News, “Trump administration set to launch tariff refund portal. Here’s what to know,” April 2026.
5. Associated Press (via CNBC), “Businesses can claim refunds for Trump tariffs ruled unconstitutional starting Monday,” April 19, 2026.
6. CBS News, “Tariff refund delays could cost U.S. taxpayers $700 million a month in interest,” March 4, 2026 (citing Cato Institute).
7. U.S. Congress, S.3905 — Tariff Refund Act of 2026, 119th Congress.
8. Ernst & Young (EY), “5 actions after the Supreme Court tariff ruling,” March 2026.
9. Yoopya News, “Supreme Court Ruling Triggers Up to $166 Billion in Trump Tariff Refunds,” April 16, 2026.
10. Penn Wharton Budget Model, University of Pennsylvania, “Supreme Court Tariff Ruling: IEEPA Revenue and Potential Refunds,” February 20, 2026.