What Every Multinational Should Know About…Managing the Aftermath of the Supreme Court’s IEEPA Tariff Decision (Part III)

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision invalidating the IEEPA tariffs, attention is now shifting from whether the tariffs were lawful to how companies can actually recover the bil-lions of dollars at stake. As discussed in the first part of this five-part series, the refund process will likely be complex, protracted, and highly fact-specific, with key issues to be resolved by the Court of International Trade (CIT).

At the same time, many companies face two other — often equally important — questions: now that the Court has ruled, who is potentially entitled to refunds? And what should be done to protect the organization’s importations while the administration is pivoting to the use of new tariff authorities and is continuing to crack down on potential tariff evasion?

To help answer these questions and to help companies navigate the aftermath of this his-toric Supreme Court decision, the Foley International Trade & National Security and Supply Chain Teams are publishing a series of articles outlining key actions that companies should be taking now to navigate the post-decision landscape. The series covers:

• Part I: Preserving the Right to IEEPA Tariff Refunds (found here).
• Part II: Contractual Issues for Importers of Record (found here).
• Part III: Customs & Supply Chain Issues for Importers of Record.
• Part IV: Contractual Issues for Companies That Indirectly Paid IEEPA Tariffs.
• Part V: Avoiding Common Pitfalls.

Part III follows below.

Customs & Supply Chain Issues for Companies That Are Importers of Record

Part II of this series outlined the contractual issues that arise for importers of record who paid the IEEPA tariffs. But the contractual piece is only half of the equation. Importers of record also need to take steps to ensure that they are best positioned to secure any refunds, while also ensuring that they are adapting to the new replacement tariffs. So, on the customs side, we recommend the following steps for importers of record to handle these customs issues:

Step 1: Have You Identified the Full Universe of Affected Entries?

The starting point for any refund strategy is developing a complete, accurate, and defensible inventory of all entries subject to IEEPA tariffs. Without this baseline, companies risk missing refund opportunities, failing to meet procedural deadlines, or advancing inconsistent positions in litigation or administrative proceedings.

In practice, this exercise is often more complex than expected, particularly for companies operating across multiple entities, brokers, and ports of entry. Companies should:

• Extract comprehensive ACE data covering the full IEEPA tariff period, including:
  • the initial February 2025 tariffs;
  • subsequent expansions (e.g., the April 2025 “Liberation Day” measures); and
  • any modifications or successor tariff provisions.
• Identify all relevant HTS classifications, including entries reflecting Chapter 99 provisions (e.g., the 9903.01/9903.02 series), and confirm that these classifications were consistently applied.
• Map entries across the organization, including:
  • all U.S. importer entities within the corporate structure;
  • affiliated companies and related-party importers;
  • all customs brokers and filing locations; and
  • all ports of entry.
• Create a centralized “master entry tracker” capturing the following for each entry:
  • entry number and date;
  • HTS classification (including Chapter 99 provisions);
  • duties paid (including IEEPA tariffs and related amounts);
  • the importer of record; and
  • broker and port information.
• Segment entries by procedural status, including:
  • unliquidated entries;
  • liquidated entries within the protest window; and
  • entries that may be approaching liquidation or protest deadlines.
• Reconcile data across systems, including:
  • ACE reports;
  • broker records (e.g., entry summaries/CBP Form 7501 data); and
  • internal ERP and accounts payable systems.
• Identify data gaps or inconsistencies, such as:
  • missing entries or incomplete records;
  • discrepancies between broker filings and internal financial data; and
  • the inconsistent use of tariff classifications.

Key takeaway: Companies that invest early in building a complete and reliable entry-level dataset will be best positioned to preserve refund rights, meet procedural deadlines, and support both litigation and administrative recovery efforts. This “master entry tracker” becomes the foundation for every subsequent step in the refund process.

Step 2: Are You Tracking Liquidation and Protest Deadlines in Real Time?

Even after identifying the full universe of affected entries, companies face a critical operational challenge: ensuring that procedural deadlines tied to those entries are not missed. In the customs context, liquidation and protest deadlines can determine whether duties become final and unchallengeable absent judicial relief.

Given the uncertainty surrounding how the CIT will address administrative exhaustion and the treatment of liquidated entries, companies should assume that failure to track and act on these deadlines could materially impair refund recovery.

Companies should implement a real-time tracking process that encompasses the following:

• Monitoring liquidation status for all entries, including:
  • whether entries remain unliquidated;
  • whether liquidation has occurred; and
  • the date of liquidation for each entry.
• Tracking protest deadlines (19 U.S.C. § 1514), including:
  • the 180-day deadline from liquidation to file a protest;
  • the identification of high-value entries where protests should be prioritized; and
  • internal escalation procedures as deadlines approach.
• Identifying entries eligible for post-summary corrections (PSCs), including:
  • unliquidated entries within the PSC filing window; and
  • whether PSCs are strategically appropriate given broader litigation posture.
• Creating a centralized “deadline tracker,” integrated with the master entry dataset, that:
  • flags upcoming liquidation events;
  • tracks protest and PSC deadlines in real time; and
  • assigns internal responsibility for action.
• Monitoring CBP communications and instructions, including:
  • CSMS messages that may affect liquidation timing or instructions; and
  • any CBP guidance regarding the handling of IEEPA-related entries.
• Coordinating with customs brokers, including:
  • ensuring brokers are aligned on protest and PSC strategy;
  • confirming that brokers are not taking unilateral actions inconsistent with company strategy; and
  • establishing clear instructions for escalation when liquidation occurs.
• Evaluating the strategic use of protests, including:
  • whether to file protests broadly to preserve rights;
  • whether to focus on representative or high-value entries; and
  • how protest strategy aligns with any parallel CIT litigation.

Key takeaway: Liquidation is the point at which duties typically become final. In a rapidly evolving legal environment, companies that fail to actively track liquidation and protest deadlines risk losing refund opportunities by operation of law. A disciplined, real-time tracking process is essential to preserving optionality while the broader refund framework is being resolved.

Step 3: Have You Considered Filing a Protective 1581(i) Action at the CIT?

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision and the remand to the Court of International Trade (CIT), one of the most important strategic decisions facing importers is whether to file a protective action under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) to preserve refund rights. As discussed in our companion alert, the contours of the refund process remain highly uncertain, and procedural posture may ultimately determine who recovers — and how quickly.

While administrative mechanisms (e.g., post-summary corrections and protests) may play a role, there is significant uncertainty regarding whether such remedies will be required, sufficient, or even available. A properly filed 1581(i) action provides a means of securing independent judicial oversight before an Article III court and avoiding reliance on evolving administrative processes.

Companies should carefully evaluate whether to pursue a protective filing, taking into account the following considerations:

• Preserving jurisdiction and avoiding procedural forfeiture
  • Whether a 1581(i) filing is necessary to ensure access to the CIT regardless of how the Court resolves exhaustion issues
  • The risk that reliance solely on administrative remedies could later be deemed inadequate or untimely
  • Whether failure to file could limit recovery if relief is ultimately restricted to plaintiffs
• Scope of relief and positioning
  • Whether the CIT may limit relief to parties that have filed actions
  • The potential advantage of being a named plaintiff in shaping the remedy, timing, and implementation of refunds
  • The ability to seek reliquidation of entries, including those that have already liquidated
• Interaction with administrative strategies
  • How a 1581(i) action aligns with (or replaces) PSC and protest strategies
  • Whether a hybrid approach is appropriate (i.e., preserving administrative rights while pursuing judicial relief)
  • Avoiding inconsistent positions between litigation and administrative filings
• Entity-level considerations
  • Whether each importer of record within a corporate group should file separately
  • Coordination among affiliates, subsidiaries, and related parties
  • Ensuring that the proper legal entity is named to preserve its specific refund rights
• Timing and coordination
  • Monitoring developments in the CIT to assess optimal timing for filing
  • Coordinating with outside counsel and, where appropriate, industry groups or aligned plaintiffs
  • Ensuring filings are made before any potential cutoff created by future administrative processes
• Operational and financial considerations
  • Internal approvals and governance around litigation decisions
  • Anticipated costs relative to potential refund recovery
  • Alignment with broader refund and commercial recovery strategy

Key takeaway: In a landscape where the CIT will be resolving fundamental questions regarding jurisdiction, exhaustion, and the scope of relief, a protective 1581(i) action remains one of the most effective tools for preserving refund rights and maintaining control over the recovery process. Companies that delay or forgo filing risk being constrained by whatever administrative framework ultimately emerges.

Step 4: Are You Tracking Refund Developments and Required Steps to Secure Refunds?

Although the Supreme Court has invalidated the IEEPA tariffs, it did not establish a mechanism for issuing refunds. Instead, the issue has been remanded to the CIT, which will need to resolve a number of foundational questions regarding whether refunds will be issued, to whom, and through what process.

As a result, companies must actively monitor developments and be prepared to act quickly as the refund framework begins to take shape. This is not a “wait and see” situation — the steps required to secure refunds may evolve rapidly and may include both judicial and administrative actions.

Companies should:

• Monitor developments at the CIT, including:
  • briefing schedules and key filings by the parties;
  • positions taken by the government regarding refunds and administrative processes; and
  • court rulings addressing:
    • scope of relief (plaintiff-only vs. broader application);
    • administrative exhaustion requirements;
    • treatment of liquidated entries; and
    • the availability of nationwide or programmatic relief.
• Track potential administrative refund mechanisms, including:
  • whether CBP establishes a formal refund process (automatic or opt-in); and
  • whether refunds are tied to:
    • protests or PSCs;
    • participation in litigation; or
    • new filing or certification requirements.
• Identify required actions to qualify for refunds, including:
  • whether additional filings, certifications, or documentation will be required;
  • whether companies must affirmatively elect into a refund program; and
  • whether deadlines or eligibility criteria are imposed.
• Maintain a “refund readiness” posture, including:
  • ensuring entry-level data is complete and accessible;
  • preparing to submit supporting documentation on short notice; and
  • coordinating internally to respond quickly to new requirements.
• Align internal stakeholders, including:
  • legal (litigation strategy and filings);
  • trade compliance (entry data and CBP processes); and
  • finance (tracking expected recoveries and reconciliation).
• Monitor communications from CBP and other agencies, including:
  • CSMS messages;
  • Federal Register notices; and
  • agency guidance or FAQs related to refund implementation.
• Evaluate strategic positioning as the process evolves, including:
  • whether additional filings (judicial or administrative) are advisable;
  • whether to adjust protest or PSC strategies in light of new guidance; and
  • how developments affect timing and likelihood of recovery.

Key takeaway: The refund process will not be automatic and is likely to evolve through a combination of litigation and agency action. Companies that actively track developments and maintain a state of “refund readiness” will be best positioned to act quickly and secure recovery as the process unfolds.

Step 5: Are You Audit Ready for Refund Claims?

Companies seeking significant refunds of IEEPA tariffs should expect heightened scrutiny from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Large-scale refund claims — particularly those tied to a high-profile Supreme Court decision — are likely to trigger validation efforts, focused reviews, or formal audits.

Accordingly, companies should not view refund recovery as purely a litigation or administrative exercise, but as one that must be supported by a defensible and well-documented import compliance posture.

Companies should take proactive steps to ensure audit readiness, including:

• Validate tariff applicability and classification
  • Confirm that goods were properly classified, including correct use of Chapter 99 provisions (e.g., 9903.01/9903.02)
  • Identify any inconsistencies in classification across entries, products, or time periods
  • Assess whether any classifications could be challenged under current enforcement priorities
• Confirm country-of-origin determinations
  • Review origin analyses for products subject to IEEPA tariffs
  • Ensure documentation supports substantial transformation or other origin determinations
  • Evaluate exposure to transshipment or origin-evasion scrutiny, particularly for goods involving high-risk jurisdictions
• Review customs valuation practices
  • Confirm that declared values reflect the price actually paid or payable, including proper statutory additions
  • Evaluate treatment of
    • assists;
    • royalties and license fees; and
    • transfer pricing adjustments or post-import true-ups.
  • Ensure consistency between customs declarations and financial records
• Reconcile entry and payment data
  • Confirm that refund amounts claimed align with actual duties paid
  • Reconcile ACE data, broker records, and internal financial systems
  • Identify and resolve discrepancies before submitting or supporting refund claims
• Review broker filings and instructions
  • Confirm that brokers filed entries consistent with company instructions
  • Ensure there are no systemic errors in filings (e.g., misclassification, incorrect origin reporting)
  • Verify that documentation retained by brokers is complete and accessible
• Evaluate exposure in high-risk areas
  • Tariff engineering or product modifications implemented during the tariff period
  • Changes in sourcing or routing that could raise enforcement questions
  • Use of duty mitigation strategies (e.g., FTZs, drawbacks) and their interaction with IEEPA tariffs
• Conduct targeted internal audits or “mock audits”
  • Identify and remediate issues before CBP review
  • Prepare internal teams for potential CBP inquiries or audits
  • Develop consistent narratives and documentation to support positions taken
• Ensure documentation is complete and organized
  • Entry documentation (e.g., CBP Form 7501 data, commercial invoices, packing lists)
  • Origin documentation and supplier certifications
  • Internal analyses supporting classification, valuation, and origin determinations

Key takeaway: Refund claims of this magnitude will attract scrutiny. Companies that proactively validate their import practices and documentation will be far better positioned to secure refunds without triggering delays, disputes, or enforcement exposure.

Step 6: Is Your Customs Compliance in Order?

Beyond preparing for refund-related scrutiny, companies should take this opportunity to ensure that their overall customs compliance framework is current, consistent, and aligned with today’s enforcement environment. The invalidation of the IEEPA tariffs does not reduce CBP’s focus on enforcement — if anything, it increases it, particularly as the government pivots to new tariff authorities and continues to prioritize tariff evasion, origin issues, and supply chain integrity.

Companies should evaluate and, where necessary, enhance their customs compliance programs, including:

• Governance and internal controls
  • Clearly defined roles and responsibilities for customs compliance across legal, trade, finance, and operations
  • Documented policies and procedures covering classification, valuation, origin, and broker management
  • Escalation protocols for high-risk or uncertain import decisions
• Classification controls and consistency
  • Centralized oversight of HTS classifications to avoid inconsistent treatment across products or business units
  • Procedures for reviewing and updating classifications in response to new tariff measures
  • Use of binding rulings or internal classification guidance where appropriate
• Country-of-origin and supply chain integrity controls
  • Standardized processes for origin determinations and documentation
  • Controls addressing transshipment risk and supplier representations
  • Integration of origin analysis with broader supply chain integrity programs (including forced labor considerations)
• Valuation and transfer pricing alignment
  • Coordination between customs and tax teams to ensure alignment between declared values and transfer pricing policies
  • Processes for handling post-import adjustments in a CBP-compliant manner
  • Periodic reviews of assists, royalties, and other statutory additions
• Broker oversight and management
  • Clear written instructions to brokers regarding classification, origin, and valuation
  • Periodic audits of broker filings to ensure accuracy and consistency
  • Defined protocols for correcting errors and addressing discrepancies
• Training and awareness
  • Regular training for personnel involved in import, procurement, logistics, and finance
  • Targeted training on new tariff programs and enforcement priorities
  • Ensuring business teams understand the compliance implications of sourcing and pricing decisions
• Recordkeeping and documentation systems
  • Systems to ensure required customs records are maintained and readily accessible
  • Alignment between operational systems (ERP) and customs documentation
  • Readiness to respond to CBP requests for information or audit inquiries
• Continuous monitoring and testing
  • Periodic internal audits or compliance reviews beyond refund-related entries
  • Use of data analytics to identify anomalies or trends
  • Ongoing updates to compliance programs based on regulatory and enforcement developments

Key takeaway: The post-IEEPA environment is not a return to the status quo — it is a transition to heightened and evolving enforcement. Companies that use this moment to strengthen their customs compliance infrastructure will be better positioned not only to support refund recovery, but also to manage ongoing tariff exposure and reduce future enforcement risk.

Step 7: Are You Managing the Transition to New Tariff Regimes?

The invalidation of the IEEPA tariffs does not create a tariff-free environment — it marks a transition to a new and rapidly evolving set of tariff measures. As the administration pivots to alternative authorities (including Sections 122, 232, and 301), companies must ensure that their import operations are fully aligned with current requirements and do not rely on outdated assumptions tied to the IEEPA framework.

This transition period presents particular risk: companies focused on refund recovery may inadvertently overlook new tariff exposure, misapply updated HTS provisions, or carry forward legacy classifications and origin assumptions that no longer hold.

Companies should take proactive steps to manage this transition, including:

• Identify and map new tariff exposure
  • Determine which products are now subject to new or increased duties under Section 122, 232, or 301 actions
  • Identify overlap or interaction between prior IEEPA-covered goods and newly covered products
  • Confirm the correct application of new Chapter 99 provisions and duty rates
• Update classification and entry processes
  • Ensure HTS classifications reflect current tariff programs and are updated in real time
  • Validate that entry procedures and broker instructions incorporate new tariff requirements
  • Avoid “carryover errors” where outdated tariff codes or assumptions continue to be used
• Reassess country-of-origin implications
  • Evaluate whether new tariff regimes change the significance of origin determinations
  • Identify supply chains that may now present increased tariff exposure based on sourcing country
  • Confirm that origin analyses remain accurate and defensible under current rules
• Integrate tariff changes into operational and financial systems
  • Update ERP, landed cost models, and pricing systems to reflect current duty rates
  • Ensure procurement and finance teams are working from aligned and current tariff data
  • Identify products where new tariffs materially affect margins or pricing decisions
• Coordinate across functions
  • Align legal, trade compliance, procurement, and logistics teams on new tariff requirements
  • Ensure consistent understanding of how new tariffs affect sourcing, pricing, and import processes
  • Establish clear internal communication channels for rapid updates as new measures are introduced
• Monitor ongoing developments
  • Track Federal Register notices, HTS updates, and CBP guidance related to new tariff programs
  • Monitor for expansions, exclusions, or modifications to existing tariff measures
  • Be prepared to adjust quickly as new actions are announced or implemented
• Evaluate mitigation and adaptation strategies
  • Consider supply chain adjustments, alternative sourcing, or tariff engineering opportunities
  • Assess feasibility of duty mitigation programs (e.g., FTZs, bonded warehouses, drawback) under new regimes
  • Identify longer-term structural changes needed to reduce tariff exposure

Key takeaway: The end of the IEEPA tariffs is not an endpoint — it is a pivot point. Companies that actively manage the transition to new tariff regimes will be better positioned to avoid new exposure, maintain compliance, and protect margins in an increasingly dynamic trade environment.

Step 8: Is Your Supply Chain Flexible Enough to Weather Ongoing Tariff Changes?

The events surrounding the IEEPA tariffs — and their abrupt invalidation — underscore a central reality: tariff risk is no longer episodic; it is continuous and structural. Companies that treat tariffs as a one-time disruption will remain reactive. Those that build flexibility into their supply chains will be better positioned to respond to rapid legal and policy shifts.

While Steps 5–7 focus on compliance and immediate operational adjustments, this step addresses a broader question: can your supply chain adapt quickly enough when tariff regimes change — again?

Companies should evaluate and enhance supply chain flexibility, including:

• Diversification of sourcing
  • Assess reliance on single-country or single-supplier sourcing, particularly in high-risk jurisdictions
  • Identify alternative suppliers or production locations that could be activated if tariffs shift
  • Develop contingency sourcing plans for key inputs and finished goods
• Country-of-origin planning and flexibility
  • Evaluate whether production processes can be restructured to support alternative origin outcomes (consistent with customs rules)
  • Understand the operational feasibility and lead times associated with shifting origin
  • Align origin strategies with compliance requirements to avoid enforcement risk
• Tariff engineering opportunities
  • Assess whether product design, component sourcing, or manufacturing steps can be modified to achieve more favorable classifications or duty treatment
  • Ensure that any such strategies are legally supportable and well documented
  • Integrate engineering and compliance teams into product development decisions
• Use of duty mitigation programs
  • Evaluate use (or expanded use) of:
    • foreign-trade zones (FTZs)
    • bonded warehouses
    • duty drawback

Determine whether current programs remain optimal under new tariff regimes

• Operational agility and lead times
  • Assess how quickly sourcing, production, and logistics can be adjusted in response to tariff changes
  • Identify bottlenecks that could delay supply chain shifts
  • Build flexibility into production planning and inventory strategies
• Contractual alignment with supply chain strategy
  • Ensure supplier agreements support rapid changes in sourcing or production
  • Align contractual tariff provisions with operational realities (e.g., ability to shift suppliers or renegotiate pricing)
• Cross-functional integration
  • Coordinate supply chain decisions across legal, trade compliance, procurement, and finance teams
  • Ensure that tariff and compliance considerations are embedded in sourcing decisions, not addressed after the fact
• Scenario planning and stress testing
  • Model the impact of potential new tariffs or expansions of existing measures
  • Identify high-risk products or supply chains and develop mitigation strategies in advance
  • Conduct “what-if” analyses to test organizational readiness for sudden tariff changes

Key takeaway: In the current environment, supply chain flexibility is a critical component of trade compliance and risk management. Companies that build adaptable, well-coordinated supply chains will be far better equipped to navigate ongoing tariff volatility and protect both compliance and commercial performance

If you have questions about these matters, please reach out to the authors or your Foley & Larder relationship attorney.

The Foley International Trade & National Security Practice

The Foley International Trade & National Security Team covers the full gamut of international trade needs, including for tariffs, customs, supply chain/supply chain integrity, trade remedies/antidumping/countervailing duty, export controls, economic sanctions, and CFIUS national security filings. Our Tariff & International Trade blog regularly publishes practical guidance, like this client alert, on all international trade topics and compiles it by topic area on the Foley Tariff & International Trade Resources blog. Click Here to Register for our email list to receive future emails and practical international regulatory compliance tips, including our biweekly What Every Multinational Should Know articles.

The Foley Supply Chain Practice

The Foley Supply Chain Team helps create, strengthen, and protect every link of your supply chain. Our multidisciplinary group of attorneys brings vast experience across sectors and industries and provides practical, business‑focused legal support across every aspect of supply chain operations — from commercial contracts and compliance to logistics, supply of goods, manufacturing, and risk management. For insights on other trending supply chain topics and to get to know our supply chain team, please feel free to reach out to the authors or to visit Foley’s Supply Chain Team page.