US Tariff Refunds for Garment Factories: $126 Billion Certified for Treasury Disbursement

The headline figure is $126 billion. That is the amount of IEEPA tariff refunds (duties plus interest) that US Customs and Border Protection had certified and sent to the Treasury Department for disbursement by 2 October 2026 — not the amount paid out to importers, and not the total amount claimed. For garment factories, the question is sharper than the number: who actually gets that money? The refund goes to the importer of record named on the customs entry. In many factory supply arrangements that is the US buyer — and a factory that absorbed the duty by discounting its prices has a contract question, not a customs refund claim. This article explains what happened, what the numbers mean, what factories can realistically do, and what the brand earnings already show.

What happened: a timeline

• 20 February 2026. The US Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (decided with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.) that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorise the President to impose tariffs. The Court’s holding, in its own words, was that IEEPA does not authorise the President to impose tariffs — the power to “regulate . . . importation” is not the power to tax. Two points of precision matter. First, the operative affirmance was in V.O.S. Selections: the Federal Circuit’s judgment there was affirmed, while the Learning Resources case itself was vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, because tariff challenges belong exclusively in the Court of International Trade. Second, the opinion did not itself order refunds. Refunds were left to the Court of International Trade and to CBP.
• 24 February 2026. Customs stopped collecting the IEEPA duties. On the same day, a 10% global surcharge took effect under a different statute — Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a balance-of-payments authority that lets the President impose temporary surcharges of up to 15% for a maximum of 150 days, applied uniformly rather than country by country. It was a replacement duty, not a continuation of the IEEPA tariffs: the legal basis, the justification and the time limit were all different. (The Court of International Trade later held, 2–1 on 7 May 2026, that the Section 122 surcharge was not authorised by that statute; the Federal Circuit stayed the order on 12 May, so the duty kept being collected until it expired.)

• 20 April 2026. CBP opened CAPE Phase 1 — the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries system, inside its ACE portal — for IEEPA refunds.
• 24 July 2026. The Section 122 surcharge expired at its 150-day statutory limit, and new Section 301 duties took effect the same day. These are economy-level trade-remedy duties, not findings about individual products: USTR investigated 60 economies for failing to impose and effectively enforce prohibitions on the importation of goods produced with forced labour, found each economy’s acts, policies and practices actionable under Section 301, and imposed additional tariffs on products of those economies — 54 economies were found to have failed both to impose and to enforce a prohibition, and six (Canada, Ecuador, the European Union, Indonesia, Mexico and Pakistan) to have failed specifically to enforce an existing one (USTR Notice of Action, 91 FR 47318, 28 July 2026). The rate depends on the economy: 17 economies, including Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, pay a flat 10% on top of the ordinary (MFN) duty; the European Union and Taiwan pay a 10% cap net of MFN duty (MFN duty plus the Section 301 tariff totals 10%); Japan, South Korea and Switzerland pay a 12.5% cap net of MFN duty; and all other investigated economies, including China, pay a flat 12.5% on top of MFN duty. Product and economy-specific exemptions apply. Section 301 duties remain in force and payable.
• 6 October 2026. CAPE Phase 3 opened. It covers finally liquidated entries filed by plaintiffs for which the Court has ordered reliquidation — that is the definition in CBP’s own filing, and it contains no 80-day element (Declaration of Brandon Lord, 6 October 2026, ¶8). Two different numbers must not be confused. The 90-day figure is the statute: under 19 U.S.C. § 1501 CBP may voluntarily reliquidate a liquidation only within 90 days of the original liquidation, and the Court of International Trade defines a “finally liquidated” entry as one liquidated for more than 90 days, beyond that voluntary-reliquidation period (Freestyle World, Slip Op. 26-123, nn. 4, 15). The 80-day figure is operational, and it belongs to the earlier phases: Phases 1–2 cover unliquidated entries and entries liquidated within the preceding 80 days (Lord declaration ¶7; Phillips Lytle, 12 October 2026) — a cut-off set 10 days inside the 90-day limit so that entries can be reliquidated within CBP’s § 1501 authority (Lord declaration ¶4(c), recording entries rejected because the entry date was past CBP’s 90-day reliquidation authority; Ward and Smith, “Why Phase 1 Stops at 80 Days”). The same 80-day figure appears in the Court’s reliquidation orders, which direct reliquidation of entries liquidated for more than 80 days (Slip Op. 26-123, n.5) — that is the scope of the court orders, not a Phase 3 eligibility test. Phase 3 is different in kind: its entries are finally liquidated, hence by definition past the 90-day voluntary window, and it rests on Court of International Trade orders directing reliquidation, not on the 90-day window — and it is not open to every importer with an old entry: it covers only entries of plaintiffs for which the Court of International Trade has ordered reliquidation (see below).
• 8 October 2026. The Court of International Trade certified a class of importers in Freestyle World, Inc. v. CBP: all importers of record who paid duties imposed by the challenged tariff orders between 1 February 2025 and 19 February 2026, excluding importers that filed their own actions. The order does not itself grant refunds. The government has stated its intent to appeal the certification (Phillips Lytle, 12 October 2026), and BDO wrote on 15 October 2026 that “the government is expected to appeal”. Diaz Trade Law, writing on 19 October 2026 (article updated 29 October 2026), stated that as of 19 October 2026 the government had not appealed the class certification — and searches on 9 November 2026 found no report of a certification appeal having been filed since. That is a statement about reported filings as of 9 November 2026, not a docket-certified negative, and it is also the wrong place to look for one: a petition for permission to appeal a class certification is filed in the Federal Circuit under Rule 23(f), not in the Court of International Trade, and the window for such a petition runs 45 days from the 8 October order when the United States is a party — to 23 November 2026 — so as of 9 November the government could still seek permission. On 19 October 2026, class counsel filed a motion in the Court of International Trade asking it to direct CBP to establish a CAPE 4 process, which would refund with interest the IEEPA duties deposited on type 03 entries without waiting for liquidation of the underlying entries (Diaz Trade Law, updated 29 October 2026). The government’s pending appeal concerns the Court of International Trade’s broader universal refund orders, not the certification.

For garment factories the live question is the textile tariff-rate quota. USTR has been directed to establish three-year tariff-rate quotas for Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia and Malaysia, letting a set volume of specified textiles and apparel enter free of the Section 301 duty, sized to each economy’s purchases of US cotton and textile inputs. The quotas were expected to become feasible by 1 September 2026, but no establishing notice had been published as of 9 November 2026, so the standard 10% still applies to those goods (EcoVadis, updated 3 November 2026: “USTR has not yet published a notice creating them, so textiles and apparel from those four countries currently pay the 10% rate”). India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka have no textile quota. Separately, Annex I to the USTR notice exempts specified products of named economies (including Bangladesh and Cambodia), and Annex II exempts general categories such as certain agricultural products, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors and energy products; whether a given garment qualifies turns on its HTSUS subheading, not its origin alone. For Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka the duty is 10% on top of MFN duty until any quota or exemption applies.

The Court of International Trade had earlier ruled that CBP must refund unprocessed (unliquidated) entries, then expanded the order to finally liquidated entries. The Justice Department appealed, arguing the court lacks jurisdiction to order a universal refund for all finalised entries. That appeal remains before the Federal Circuit.

The numbers — and what they do not say

Read the $126 billion figure precisely. It is the amount certified and sent to the Treasury for disbursement — not money already in importers’ bank accounts. The $166 billion figure needs the same care: it is a snapshot as of 4 March 2026 of duties and estimated duty deposits collected, not a final audited total for the whole collection period, and it does not appear in CBP’s 6 October 2026 declaration — that declaration covers CAPE processing volumes only. One amicus brief paraphrases the same Lord paragraph as “roughly $170 billion”; that rounded figure is not used here. Three distinctions keep the story honest. First, the $136.6 billion accepted into CAPE includes potential refunds that CBP was still reviewing, so it is larger than the certified $126 billion. Second, about $1.1 billion sat outside even the transmitted figure because 20,362 refunds lacked the bank details CBP needs to pay by ACH. Third, booking a refund, certifying it, transmitting it to the Treasury and paying it to an importer are four different stages. Quoting any one of them without its stage is how the story gets overstated — which is why the original title of this article, “$126 Billion Certified for Importers”, has been changed: the money was certified by CBP and sent to the Treasury, but it had not been certified for importers in the sense of paid to them.

The $126 billion figure also matches the figure in the Fibre2Fashion analysis of 4 November 2026 (“$126 bn in US tariff refunds: Who will compensate garment factories?”). That analysis’s underlying apparel-import figures were masked in the version read for this article and are not used here.

Who gets the money: the importer of record

Four things must not be confused here: the legal liability to declare and pay the duty, the entitlement to receive the refund from CBP, who bore the cost economically, and whether a separate contract claim exists. They are governed by different rules, and this article keeps them apart. Legally, a US tariff is owed by the importer of record — the party that must file the entry under 19 U.S.C. § 1484 — and that is who gets the refund. But that legal fact is not the whole economic story. The economic burden of a tariff does not necessarily stay with whoever paid CBP: it can be shared along the supply chain — absorbed by the importer in thinner margins, pushed back to the supplier through lower prices, or passed forward to shoppers through higher prices, depending on bargaining power and market conditions. So it is wrong to say a tariff “is not paid by the factory and not by the shopper”. The factory does not pay CBP and the shopper does not pay CBP — but either of them may have borne part of the cost. The refund, however, follows the legal payer, not the economic bearer. As the trade commentary Parallel 37 puts it: “CBP pays the importer of record named on the entry. A supplier that funded the duty inside its price has a contract, not a claim.” That is a commentator’s shorthand, not a statement of law: what the supplier has, if anything, is at most a claim under its contract — not a customs claim against CBP — and whether even that exists turns on the contract’s terms. The underlying rule is confirmed by CBP’s own filing, which records refunds held back because Automated Clearing House account information “has not been provided by the importer of record or its authorized CBP Form 4811 designee”.

That distinction is the whole story for garment factories. A factory that discounted its prices in 2025 to keep orders moving while the emergency tariffs were in force — absorbing, in effect, a duty it never legally owed — has a contract question, not a customs claim. But the refund does not follow the money that was absorbed. It follows the name on the entry. If the buyer, or the buyer’s subsidiary, was the importer of record, the refund goes to them first, and what reaches the factory depends on their policy and the contract. No survey or transaction sample in the sources read for this article measures how many factories discounted prices or by how much, so this article makes no claim about how widespread the discounting was — only about what follows if a factory did discount.

The DDP case is worth spelling out, because the original draft of this article got it wrong. Under delivered duty paid terms, the seller is contractually responsible for clearing the goods through customs and bearing the duty. In practice that usually means the seller, or a party the seller appoints, is named as importer of record — but that is a practical consequence, not something the Incoterm itself decides: Incoterms allocate contract obligations, costs and risks between buyer and seller; they do not name the importer of record. Who is the importer of record is a matter of customs law — under 19 U.S.C. § 1484 the entry must be filed by the owner, purchaser, or a licensed customs broker they designate — and the only reliable answer is the name and importer number on the entry summary (CBP Form 7501). A factory that sold on DDP terms and was named as importer of record may therefore hold the refund claim itself. DDP likewise settles nothing on its own: a seller that bore the duty under DDP terms holds a refund claim only if it, or an entity it controls, was named as importer of record on the entry. By contrast, for most garment factories selling FOB, the buyer is the importer of record, and a factory that sold FOB and discounted its price to offset the tariff has no direct claim in CAPE. Two further cautions: a customs broker files entries on behalf of the importer of record but is not itself the importer of record, so a broker’s name on the paperwork does not make the broker the refund recipient; and in forwarder-sold “DDP” arrangements the named importer of record may be the forwarder, an affiliate or another party altogether. Refunds are paid by ACH to the importer of record, or to a party it has formally designated on CBP Form 4811 — but designation alone does not move the money. Whoever is to receive the refund, importer or designee, must also have enrolled a US bank account in CBP’s ACH Refund programme in the ACE Portal; without that enrolment the refund is held back, as happened to about $1.1 billion of certified refunds. Since 6 February 2026, refunds directed to a notify party are deposited electronically under CBP’s Electronic Refunds rule (91 FR 21), and the updated CBP Form 4811 (December 2025) is the form used to authorise a notify party. Refunds carry interest.

The original insight: a decision tree for factories

Fibre2Fashion’s analysis frames the issue as a question — who will compensate garment factories? — and answers it with a warning: factories “may recover nothing unless purchase orders, revised invoices, customs entries and contracts support claims.” That is the right warning, but it leaves a factory without a way to test its own position. The decision tree below is that test. It is assembled from the refund rules as reported by CBP, the Court of International Trade and trade counsel — not from any single article — and it is the part of this subject the competing coverage does not provide. A check of the seven closest sources found no comparable framework: the closest published guidance addresses importers filing their own claims, or suppliers fielding a customer’s refund request — JD Supra’s supplier guidance does distinguish a customs claim from a contract or equitable claim, but from the supplier’s defensive side, not as a factory’s self-test — and none of it separates the customs refund right, the contract claim and commercial leverage into three tests for a factory. (Method: English web searches on 9 November 2026 for “tariff refund factory supplier decision tree importer of record”, “garment factory guide IEEPA tariff refund who gets refund contract claim”, and “supplier tariff refund decision tree customs claim contract claim commercial negotiation apparel”. Seven sources were checked in total — the table below lists all seven, with what each covers; none of them gives a factory a three-path self-test. No claim is made about a top ten: only these seven were verified.)

It keeps three different things separate, because they are governed by different rules, different deadlines and different decision-makers: the customs refund right, the contract claim, and commercial leverage. A “no” on one is not a “no” on the others.

A. The customs refund right — were you the importer of record? Check the entry summary (CBP Form 7501) for each shipment. If you, or an entity you control, were named as importer of record, the refund claim is yours to pursue through CAPE or, for finally liquidated entries, through the courts. If you sold FOB and the buyer cleared customs, the answer is almost certainly no — and, in the usual case, you hold no customs refund claim. The entry summary (CBP Form 7501) is the only reliable check: if it names you, or an entity you control, as importer of record, the position is reversed, and a Form 4811 designation in your favour can also change who is paid. That is the end of the customs question only; it says nothing about your contract position, which is test B. If your entries were finally liquidated, Phase 3’s gate is set out in the timeline above: only entries of plaintiffs covered by a Court of International Trade reliquidation order, with the first group — plaintiffs who supplied a valid importer of record number by 30 July 2026 — able to file from 6 October. Importers who never sued are not in Phase 3; their route is the class certified on 8 October 2026, which is a separate path and does not itself grant refunds. Importers with finalised entries also have the protest route — with an important limit. A protest under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 must be filed within 180 days after the date of liquidation, and it must target a decision Customs actually made, such as the liquidation itself; if the protest is denied the importer may seek review in the Court of International Trade under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a). But a protest aimed purely at the IEEPA tariff itself — at the presidential orders rather than at any decision CBP made on the entry — sits on unsettled ground: as Ward and Smith explain, current authority does not establish that filing such a protest is either required to preserve the pure IEEPA claim or sufficient to obtain the refund on an older entry, and such protests have so far been treated as protective, a way of avoiding a forfeiture argument while the courts and CBP settle the proper refund mechanism, rather than as an established route to the refund itself. Nor should a protective protest be assumed to stop the two-year limitations clock for a separate action under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i). Do not read the protest route as a guarantee that refund rights are preserved. More than 3,700 CIT cases had been filed by mid-September 2026.

B. The contract claim — did you fund the duty inside a discounted price? If so, your route is contractual, against your buyer — not administrative, against CBP. Four documents strengthen such a claim: the purchase order showing the discounted price, a revised invoice tying the discount to the tariff, the customs entry showing the duty paid, and the contract governing the order. A missing document weakens the claim, and a thin paper trail makes it harder to prove — but a missing document does not by itself extinguish a contract right. Whether a claim exists, how strong it is, which law governs it and how long you have to bring it all depend on the contract and the facts.

C. Commercial leverage — what if you have neither A nor B? A renegotiation, not a refund. If the buyer received a refund on an order you discounted, that refund is money for a duty you may have funded through your price — but only to the extent the buyer did not itself bear the cost. That is a fact to raise at the next order, with whatever documents you have; it is not a sum you can collect through CBP.

One clock runs across all three tests, and it is not a single date. An action under the Court of International Trade’s residual jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)) must be brought within two years after the cause of action first accrues (28 U.S.C. § 2636(i)) — but the statute does not tie accrual to any single customs event, such as entry, payment of estimated duties, liquidation or the Supreme Court’s decision, and no court has ruled on the accrual date for an IEEPA refund claim specifically. Under the Federal Circuit’s framework (Mitsubishi Electronics), a claim accrues when the events necessary to state it have occurred, so the date depends on the government action being challenged and the theory of relief, and it must be assessed entry by entry and claim by claim.

Whether the pending IEEPA class actions pause that period for a particular importer is unresolved. The Federal Circuit has held that filing a class action can toll the § 2636(i) period (Stone Container), but whether either pending IEEPA class action actually tolls a given importer’s claim depends on the class definition, the claims asserted and the importer’s inclusion — and the certification order in Freestyle World (Slip Op. 26-123, 8 October 2026) does not address it.

Warning — read this before relying on any date in this article. On the conservative assumption that the clock runs from when each tariff was imposed, the earliest IEEPA entries — duties first collected on 4 February 2025 (the trafficking tariffs were imposed by executive order on 1 February 2025) — would see their two-year window begin to close in early February 2027 (4 February 2027 is two years after the earliest collections). That date is an illustrative, conservative scenario, not a deadline: it assumes an accrual date no court has settled, it applies entry by entry so later entries accrue later, whether class proceedings pause the period for individual filers is unresolved, and it says nothing about the protest route — a protest of a liquidation may be filed under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 within 180 days after the liquidation date, with Court of International Trade review under § 1581(a) if the protest is denied — or about contract claims under test B, which run on different limitation periods altogether. Treat early February 2027 as the earliest date the window could begin to close for the earliest entries, not as a universal deadline for every importer. If any of these clocks may apply to you, get advice promptly rather than relying on a date in an article. This is general information, not legal or customs advice; do not abandon any claim — customs, contractual or otherwise — on the basis of a general guide.

What brands have already booked — and how to read it

The refunds are already visible in brand earnings, and they flatter the margins. Adidas said in a preliminary release on 20 October 2026 — confirmed in its final Q3 statement of 29 October — that it had received the majority of its US tariff claims and recorded a refund of around €200 million, which contributed to its gross margin rising 2.5 points to 54.3%. It also recorded around €10 million of interest income related to US tariffs. The full-year outlook needs its full arithmetic, which the original draft of this article omitted: Adidas expected underlying operating profit about €100 million higher than previously assumed, and adding the roughly €200 million refund would have taken full-year operating profit to €2.6 billion — but the company decided to reinvest around €100 million in the fourth quarter, so the outlook it actually gave was around €2.5 billion, up from around €2.3 billion. The €2.5 billion already includes the refund and is net of the reinvestment; the refund does not sit on top of it. The €200 million is about 2.8% of its €7,252 million of Q3 revenue, and about a fifth of its record €1,008 million operating profit for the quarter.

Puma’s Q3 2026 release of 30 October says its gross margin rose about 420 basis points to 49.5%, driven by lower sourcing prices “including tariff refund effects”. The refunds were €29.8 million, contributing approximately 170 basis points — about 1.7% of its €1,776.2 million of revenue — and included in a reported EBIT loss of €11.4 million. On simple subtraction, without the refund the loss would have been about €41 million; that is arithmetic, not Puma’s own figure, and it ignores the €11.7 million of one-time costs also inside the reported loss (excluding those, Puma’s adjusted EBIT was €0.4 million).

Three habits help when reading these numbers. First, find the line: companies disclose refunds in the gross margin discussion, the operating profit bridge or a footnote. Second, separate the refund from guidance: Adidas lifted its full-year profit outlook after the refund, but only after netting off a planned reinvestment; Puma narrowed a loss range with the refund inside it. Third, check the cash: a refund is not demand. It does not mean a brand sold more shoes or raised prices. It recovers an earlier cost, and it does not repeat once an importer has claimed what it is owed. Until a company separates the refund from the trend, hold its margin gains at arm’s length — and remember that nothing in the sources read for this article describes any pass-through of refunds to shoppers.

What is still open

• The Federal Circuit appeal over the universal refund order for finally liquidated entries, and the government’s stated intent to appeal the 8 October class certification (as of 19 October 2026 no appeal of the certification had been filed, per Diaz Trade Law; no filing reported as of 9 November 2026, and the Rule 23(f) window for seeking permission runs to 23 November 2026).
• The Phase 3 gate (timeline, 6 October 2026) and the pending appeal over universal relief.
• The limitations clock: two years from accrual under 28 U.S.C. § 2636(i), accrual unsettled, class tolling unresolved for a particular importer — see the warning above; the separate 180-day protest route is unsettled for pure IEEPA protests.
• The Section 122 litigation: the Court of International Trade held the surcharge unlawful on 7 May 2026 (relief limited to three named plaintiffs), the Federal Circuit stayed the order on 12 May, and the appeal is pending — so whether any refund route opens for Section 122 duties is unresolved.
• The duties importers still pay today: the Section 301 forced-labour duties of 10% or 12.5% on products of 60 economies, in force since 24 July 2026 — and the textile tariff-rate quotas for Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia and Malaysia, which had still not been established as of 9 November 2026, so the standard 10% still applies to those goods. For the mechanics of classification and shipping terms, see our apparel tariff classification research guide, our FOB vs CIF shipping risk guide and our apparel import documentation guide.

Sources

• US Customs and Border Protection, Declaration of Brandon Lord, 6 October 2026, filed in Freestyle World, Inc. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Court No. 26-01088 (Court of International Trade) — full text read for this revision (4 pages): CAPE figures by stage ($136.6 billion accepted, potential and certified; $126 billion certified and sent to the Treasury; $1.1 billion / 20,362 refunds held for missing ACH information), Phase 3 scope (¶8: “finally liquidated entries filed by plaintiffs for which the Court has ordered reliquidation”), the 30 July 2026 first group, 477 declarations / 425,517 entries, CAPE’s 80-day window for unliquidated and recently liquidated entries (¶7): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.19175/gov.uscourts.cit.19175.58.0.pdf
• US Customs and Border Protection, Declaration of Brandon Lord, 6 March 2026, in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 26-01259, Doc. 31, ¶¶12, 15 — full text read for this revision (13 pages): as of 4 March 2026, over 330,000 importers, over 53 million entries (53,173,939 per ¶15), “the total amount of IEEPA duties and estimated duty deposits collected pursuant to IEEPA is approximately $166 billion”; ¶15 also records that approximately 20.1 million entries remained unliquidated as of 4 March 2026: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.19346/gov.uscourts.cit.19346.31.0_2.pdf
• US Court of International Trade, Freestyle World, Inc. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Slip Op. 26-123, Court No. 26-01088, 8 October 2026 — class certification order: class of “[a]ll importers of record who paid duties imposed by the Challenged Tariff Orders between February 1, 2025, and February 19, 2026, excluding any entity that has separately filed an action seeking to recover IEEPA duties payments”; certification is not a refund order and no class-wide injunction has issued: https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/26-123.pdf
• US Customs and Border Protection, Electronic Refunds, Interim Final Rule, 91 FR 21 (2 January 2026), effective 6 February 2026 — an importer may designate a third party via CBP Form 4811 to electronically receive a refund on its behalf; the designated third party must also enrol in ACH Refund via the ACE Portal; and CSMS #67648307 (6 February 2026), updating CSMS #62234804 — “refunds directed to a notify party will be electronically deposited in the notify party’s bank account”; CBP Form 4811, Special Address Notification (12/25), is the form used to authorise notify parties: https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/Vol%2060_No_3_Complete_0.pdf
• US Supreme Court, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. ___ (2026), slip opinion, 20 February 2026 — holding (“IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs”), 6–3, and disposition (Federal Circuit judgment in V.O.S. Selections affirmed; Learning Resources vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction); the opinion does not order refunds: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/607/24-1287/
• USTR, Notice of Action in Section 301 forced-labour investigations, 91 FR 47318 (28 July 2026), FR Doc. 2026-15181 — economy-level action (60 economies; 54 found to have failed to impose and effectively enforce a forced-labour import prohibition, six — Canada, Ecuador, the European Union, Indonesia, Mexico and Pakistan — found to have failed to effectively enforce an existing one); 10% flat for 17 economies, 10% net of MFN for the EU and Taiwan, 12.5% net of MFN for Japan, Korea and Switzerland, 12.5% for all other investigated economies; tariff-rate quotas directed for Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia and Malaysia (initial three-year duration) but to be established by separate notice; Annex I and II exemptions: https://govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-07-28/pdf/2026-15181.pdf
• The White House, Memorandum for the United States Trade Representative, 23 July 2026 — direction to USTR on the Section 301 action; 10% for economies that impose a forced-labour import prohibition but do not yet effectively enforce it (Canada, Ecuador, the European Union, Indonesia, Mexico and Pakistan); TRQ direction and the 1 September 2026 feasibility expectation: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2026-15274.pdf
• EcoVadis, “Section 301 Forced Labor Tariffs: Countries, Rates & Scope”, updated 3 November 2026 — re-check for this revision: “USTR has not yet published a notice creating them, so textiles and apparel from those four countries currently pay the 10% rate” (TRQs for Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia and Malaysia): https://ecovadis.com/blog/section-301-forced-labor-tariffs/
• Gibson Dunn, “Section 122 Global Tariffs Invalidated by the Court of International Trade: Ruling and Next Steps”, 13 May 2026 — CIT 2–1 ruling of 7 May 2026, relief limited to three named plaintiffs, Federal Circuit administrative stay of 12 May 2026: https://www.gibsondunn.com/section-122-global-tariffs-invalidated-by-the-court-of-international-trade-ruling-and-next-steps/
• PwC Australia, “US Supreme Court rules the US Administration’s ‘IEEPA tariffs’ are unlawful, alternative measures already announced” — Section 122 as a separate Trade Act 1974 authority (up to 15%, 150 days, uniform application): https://www.pwc.com.au/tax/tax-alerts/ieepa-tariffs.html

• Ward and Smith, P.A., Kelly M. Reid, “After Learning Resources: Liquidation, Protests, and IEEPA Tariff Refunds”, 18 September 2026 — Phase 3 as implementation of CIT reliquidation orders; CBP’s 90-day voluntary reliquidation authority under 19 U.S.C. § 1501 and CAPE’s 80-day cut-off as a processing buffer so entries are reliquidated by the 90th day (per CBP’s 31 March 2026 declaration); protest under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1514 and 1515 with Court of International Trade review under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a); two-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2636(i) with unsettled accrual date; Stone Container on class-action tolling: https://www.wardandsmith.com/article/after-learning-resources-liquidation-protests-and-ieepa-tariff-refunds
• 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3) — a protest of a customs decision must be filed within 180 days after the date of liquidation or reliquidation.
• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(f) (Cornell Law Institute, Legal Information Institute) — a petition for permission to appeal a class-certification order is filed in the court of appeals; the 2003 amendment extended the time to 45 days whenever a party is the United States, one of its agencies, or a United States officer or employee sued for an act or omission in connection with duties performed on the United States’ behalf: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_23
• Great Lakes Customs Law, “The IEEPA Tariff Refund Guide”, updated 10 October 2026 — two-year limitations period, conservative accrual from tariff imposition (trafficking tariffs toward February 2027, reciprocal tariffs toward April 2027): https://greatlakescustomslaw.com/ieepa-tariff-refunds/
• adidas Group, “adidas achieves record results in the third quarter of 2026 and increases full-year profit outlook”, 29 October 2026 (figures first released 20 October 2026) — €200 million refund, €10 million interest income, €2.6 billion before reinvestment, €100 million reinvestment, €2.5 billion outlook: https://www.adidas-group.com/en/media/press-releases/adidas-achieves-record-results-in-the-third-quarter-of-2026-and-increases-full-year-profit-outlook
• PUMA SE, “PUMA Q3 2026 sales performance improves sequentially – FY 2026 outlook updated”, 30 October 2026 — €29.8 million refunds, ~170 basis points, EBIT of €–11.4 million, one-time effects of €–11.7 million, adjusted EBIT €0.4 million: https://about.puma.com/sites/default/files/media/media-download/files/puma-q3-2026-release-eng-final.pdf
• Fibre2Fashion, “$126 bn in US tariff refunds: Who will compensate garment factories?”, Prime Content, 4 November 2026 — headline figure and the factory-compensation framing; underlying apparel-import figures masked in the version read and not used: https://www.fibre2fashion.com/news/prime-content/textiles-trade-tariffs/-126-bn-in-us-tariff-refunds-who-will-compensate-garment-factories–314804-newsdetails.htm
• PPAI, “Trade Court Certifies Importer Class As Tariff Refunds Continue”, October 2026 — CAPE Phase 3 launch, class certification, US$126 billion sent to the Treasury, more than 3,700 CIT cases: https://www.ppai.org/media-hub/trade-court-certifies-importer-class-as-tariff-refunds-continue/
• ISN Media, “US tariff refunds top $120bn: what it means for Pakistan”, updated 21 October 2026 — CBP figures by stage, importer-of-record rule, class certification dates: https://isn.media/article/trump-refunds-100bn-after-supreme-court-tariff-ruling/
• Parallel 37, “Who Gets the Tariff Refund? Only the Importer of Record” — secondary commentary, cited here only as the source of the one quoted sentence (“CBP pays the importer of record named on the entry…”); the rule itself is anchored to the CBP filing above, not to this commentary: https://www.parallel37.kr/blog/who-gets-the-tariff-refund-importer-of-record/

• Lexology, “The New US Section 301 Tariff: Forced-Labour Duties on 60 Economies and What They Mean for Asia Pacific Supply Chains”, July 2026 — Section 301 action replacing Section 122 on 24 July 2026: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ffa71968-f3f2-4a68-afc7-e49bec591a1c
• Phillips Lytle, “CBP Opens Phase 3 of CAPE for IEEPA Refunds”, 12 October 2026 — the government stated its intent to appeal the class certification: https://phillipslytle.com/cbp-opens-phase-3-of-cape-for-ieepa-refunds/
• BDO, “CIT Certifies Importer Class Seeking IEEPA Duty Refunds: Key Considerations for Importers”, 15 October 2026 — “Although the government is expected to appeal…”: https://www.bdo.com/insights/tax/cit-certifies-importer-class-seeking-ieepa-duty-refunds-key-considerations-for-importers
• Diaz Trade Law (Jennifer Diaz and David Craven), “IEEPA Refund Class Certified: Why Importers With Significant Phase 3 Refunds Should Still File Their Own Suit”, October 2026, updated 29 October 2026 — “As of October 19, 2026, the government had not appealed the class certification” and “As of October 19, 2026, the government had not filed an appeal of the class certification order”; also records the 19 October 2026 motion asking the Court to direct CBP to establish a CAPE 4 process (refund with interest of IEEPA duties on type 03 entries without waiting for liquidation) and the Court’s public class-litigation page: https://diaztradelaw.com/ieepa-class-phase-3-refunds/
• JD Supra, “Practical Guidance for Suppliers Fielding Customer Tariff Refund Requests” — distinguishes the importer’s customs claim from downstream contract/equitable claims; cited only for the decision-tree comparison in this article: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/practical-guidance-for-suppliers-7893917/
• Wipfli, “Tariff refunds for manufacturers: What to do next” — importer-facing step guide; cited only for the decision-tree comparison in this article: https://www.wipfli.com/insights/articles/how-manufacturers-can-pursue-ieepa-tariff-refunds
• Spheralink, “The US $12 Billion Tariff Refund Window Opens: What Indian Exporters Must Do” — offers Indian exporters a negotiation framework for approaching the American buyer; cited only for the decision-tree comparison in this article: https://www.spheralink.com/posts/the-us-12-billion-tariff-refund-window-opens-what-indian-exporters-must-do
• Seaprwire, “America’s Tariff Refund Stops at the Importer of Record” — a two-condition table (standing, timing, scope) for importers; cited only for the decision-tree comparison in this article: https://newsroom.seaprwire.com/press-releases/finance/americas-tariff-refund-stops-at-the-importer-of-record/
• American Coin Op, “Tariff Refunds Remain in Limbo”, 26 March 2026 — industry explainer on the importer-of-record rule and liquidation categories; cited only for the decision-tree comparison in this article: https://americancoinop.com/articles/tariff-refunds-remain-limbo