Jennifer Diaz, President, Diaz Trade Law
Amber Pirson, Attorney, Diaz Trade Law

On April 2, 2026, the President issued a proclamation strengthening Section 232 actions to adjust imports of aluminum, steel, and copper, continuing to cite national security concerns and the need to reinforce domestic metals industries. 

Key elements include: a tiered tariff structure and some products exempt from Sec. 232 tariffs, effective at 12:01 am on April 6, 2026; and manufacturing drawback claims.  

Generally, tariffs will be assessed to the full value of imported products, “regardless of their metal content,” with reduced rates for certain products from the United Kingdom (UK) and the same 200% ad valorem duty for subject metal articles from Russia. 

• Aluminum and steel articles, most copper articles, and certain derivative articles of aluminum and steel…  
  • 50%, unless either the 25% or 10% rates listed below can apply. 
    • 25% for UK products, the aluminum content of which is composed entirely of aluminum that was smelted or most recently cast in the UK, or the steel content of which is composed entirely of steel that was melted and poured in the UK. 
    • 10% for derivative articles, steel or copper content, when the metal content was smelted and cast in the U.S. 
• For certain copper and aluminum or steel derivative articles (Annex I-B)…  
  • 25%, unless either the 15% or 10% rates listed below can apply. 
    • 15% for aluminum or steel products of the UK, if smelted and cast or melted and poured in the UK. 
    • 10% for steel or copper content, when the metal content was smelted and cast in the U.S. 
• For imports listed in Annex III to this proclamation, and entered between April 6, 2026, and December 31, 2027… 
  • Rate determined by the product’s current ad valorem duty under Column 1, unless the 10% or 25% rate listed below can apply. For Column 1 duties < 15%, the additional Sec. 232 duty must be such that the sum of both is 15%. For Column 1 duties ≥ 15%, the additional Sec. 232 duty is 0%.  
    • 10% for derivative articles or steel content, when the former was smelted and cast in the US or when the latter was melted and poured in the US. \
    • 25% for imports from trading partners without normal trading relations with the U.S. (i.e., Cuba, North Korea, Russia, Belarus).  
• For imports listed in Annex III to this proclamation, and entered on or after January 1, 2028… 
  • The rate schedule applied to products listed in Annex I-B 
• Additional product-specific rules for articles or derivatives of more than one metal.  

Products Exempt from Sec. 232 Steel and Aluminum Derivatives 

• Certain items under the following chapter headings, including certain motorcycle parts: 2, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 73, 84, 85, 87, 94, and 95. (Annex II) 

Manufacturing drawback claims are available for articles that meet the following four criteria: 

• Those classifiable in an HTS listed in Annex I-B or Annex III, or later determined by the Secretary and the Trade Representative; 
• Not subject to an antidumping or countervailing duty order; 
• A product of Trade Agreement Partners (TAP), which is composed of the United Kingdom, the European Union, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Canada, and any trading partner with which the United States concludes a final Agreement on Reciprocal Trade; and 
• The aluminum and copper were smelted and cast, and the steel was melted and poured in a TAP country.  

On April 3, 2026, CBP issued guidance providing instructions for submitting entries to CBP on certain steel, aluminum, and copper articles and their derivatives. See here.

See annexes here. 

View the guide for navigating new Chapter 99 Headings here. 

Learn more: 

• Section 232 Valuation in a Gray Area: What Importers Need to Know 
• ICYMI: BIS Initiates 232 Investigations of UAS and Polysilicon Imports 
• Reminder: New Section 232 Duties on Certain Steel and Aluminum Products from Mexico 
• Tariffs and Trade Deals – Comprehensive Resource 

• Claim Portal – 85% 
• Mass Processing – 60% 
• Review and Liquidation / Reliquidation – 80% 
• Refunds – 75%  

 CAPE Phase 1 WILL Accept: 

1) Entries With Specific Liquidation Statuses 

• Entries showing Suspended, Extended, or Under Review status are eligible (including unliquidated entries and entries within the 90-day voluntary reliquidation period). 

• CBP will strip the IEEPA HTS code and recalculate duties excluding IEEPA. These entries won’t be liquidated through CAPE—they’ll liquidate normally, and IEEPA refunds will be issued at liquidation. 

2) AD/CVD-Suspended Entries  

• AD/CVD entries can be included if liquidation is suspended pending DOC instructions. 

3) Warehouse Entries 

• CAPE will remove IEEPA HTS codes for warehouse entries and withdrawals. 

• Refunds won’t be processed through CAPE—they’ll be issued when the warehouse entry liquidates in the normal cycle. 

 CAPE Phase 1 Will NOT Accept 

1) Reconciliation Entries (or Flagged Underlying Entries)

2) Entries Tied to Drawback Claims

3) Entries With an Open Protest

4) Entries NOT in ACE and… Entries Filed in ACE That Lack a Liquidation Status

5) AD/CVD Entries with DOC Liquidation Instructions Already Issued

Timing! 

• CBP may take up to 45 days after accepting a CAPE Declaration to review and liquidate eligible entries—longer if compliance concerns arise. 

• CBP will accept CAPE Declarations containing entries liquidated within the preceding 80 days. 

• Therefore, if you’re past 90 days, file a protest—but avoid filing within the first 90 days unless necessary. 

Our office will continue to closely monitor to keep you informed.

We encourage all importers impacted by the IEEPA tariffs to file a court challenge in the CIT. We believe that doing so preserves the right to receive refunds for IEEPA tariffs paid without having to pursue a long additional post-decision process.

Follow our tariffs & trade deals page to keep up with the latest trade news.

Read more:

• Supreme Court Rules IEEPA Tariffs Are Unlawful
• High Tariffs, High Stakes: The Rise in Customs Fraud and Enforcement Risk
• Courts Say Trump Tariffs are Unlawful, Now What?
• Bloomberg Law: Tariff Classification Basics
• Navigating Tariff Increases: Strategies to Minimize Tariff Costs Under the Trump Administration
• Webinar: Navigating Tariff Challenges: Mitigation Tools & Tactics

For importers seeking to recover duties paid under these tariffs, a proactive legal and compliance strategy is essential. 

A Favorable Ruling ≠ Automatic Refunds 

The Supreme Court’s determination that IEEPA tariffs are unlawful represents a significant legal milestone. However, the decision does not, by itself, create a streamlined or automatic refund mechanism for affected importers. 

On March 4, 2026, Judge Eaton of the Court of International Trade (CIT) issued an order directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to implement a refund process for certain entries that were assessed IEEPA duties. The order contemplated relief to all importers who paid IEEPA duties, stating, “All importers of record whose entries were subject to IEEPA duties are entitled to the benefit of the Learning Resources decision.” However, there is a real question as to whether the court actually has the power to order refunds for importers who have not filed a lawsuit at the CIT. The government is expected to appeal the order. 

On March 6, 2026, the United States filed a declaration from Brandon Lord, Executive Director of the CBP Office of Trade with the CIT. In this declaration, Mr. Lord explained CBP’s plan to refund the IEEPA Tariffs in compliance with the CIT’s order, but also stated that CBP does not currently have the capability to implement this. Subsequently, Judge Eaton suspended his order pending further proceedings and allowing CBP more time to implement the refund process.  

CBP’s Position on Refunds 

CBP’s posture in the litigation makes clear that refunds are not guaranteed for all importers who paid IEEPA tariffs. CBP has highlighted the administrative and logistical challenges of issuing refunds, pointing to the sheer volume of affected entries and the limitations of its current systems. Notably, in a hearing on March 4, 2026, CBP told the CIT “It is not our position that every single entry and every importer will get a refund. Our position is that you have to file a claim in this court which is why over 2,000 companies have filed claims.” 

Entry Timing 

There is also an open question about whether, litigant or not, refunds will be given for liquidated, non-protested entries. Addressing how refunds should be implemented, Judge Eaton’s order directed CBP to eliminate IEEPA duties from unliquidated and entries that are not “finally liquidated” (a process that occurs 90 days after liquidation): 

“With respect to any and all unliquidated entries that were entered subject to the IEEPA duties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection is hereby directed to liquidate those entries without regard to the IEEPA duties. Any liquidated entries for which liquidation is not final shall be reliquidated without regard to IEEPA duties.” 

However, the order doesn’t apply to entries that are beyond the 90-day re-liquidation period or  to IEEPA tariffs not at issue in the Supreme Court case, such as the India and Brazil IEEPA tariffs, leaving a gap for how these entries will be treated.  

Below is a liquidation timeline with relevant filing windows. 

What Importers Should Do 

It is likely that the U.S. will file an appeal challenging the scope of the CIT order. In preparing for future refunds, we recommend that all importers take the following steps: 

1. File suit in the CIT  

The President has made it clear that the United States intends to fight the refund process. We are confident that importers who have filed suit in the CIT will be eligible to receive refunds for the IEEPA Tariffs they paid. It is far less clear whether, and how, refunds will be issued for those that do not go to Court.  

We encourage all importers impacted by the IEEPA tariffs to file a court challenge in the CIT. We believe that doing so preserves the right to receive refunds for IEEPA tariffs, and minimizes the risk of having to pursue a long additional post-decision process. 

2. Create an ACE account immediately  

We have recommended for years that companies set up an ACE account, and this has now become even more important. ACE is the primary system for the international trade community to submit import and export data to CBP and other participating government agencies. CBP and the partner government agencies use ACE to collect, track, and process required trade information.   

An ACE account gives importers full visibility into import activity, better data for audit preparation, streamlined communication with CBP, and more. ACE is also the only way for importers to access the ACH application, which must be completed to receive refunds from CBP.  

3. Set up your U.S. bank account in ACE to receive ACH refunds 

CBP published an Interim Final Rule on January 2, 2026, announcing that the agency will issue all refunds electronically (subject to certain exceptions under 31 CFR part 208) effective February 6, 2026. CBP no longer issues any refunds by check, unless a waiver has been approved.  

Importers who are not already enrolled in the ACH Refund program must submit an ACH Refund application through the ACE Portal. As part of the ACH Refund application, all applicants are required to use a U.S. bank account (note that foreign Importers of Record may have an ACE account, but a U.S. bank account must be used for the ACH application). Once an application for ACH Refund is successfully submitted and approved in the ACE Portal, all future refunds will be issued electronically to the designated U.S. bank account. 

There are 330,566 importers who have paid IEEPA duties or duty deposits. While CBP has issued numerous communications regarding the new rule, only 21,423 entities (mostly importers or their customs brokers) have completed the set-up process to receive their refunds electronically. Until importers complete the process to receive refunds electronically, the refunds will be rejected.  

Contact Diaz Trade Law for Assistance with Your Tariff Refund Strategy 

Recovering tariff refunds in the wake of the IEEPA litigation will almost certainly not be automatic, and for many importers, the window to act may be limited. Developing a clear, proactive strategy is critical to preserving and maximizing any potential recovery.   

Diaz Trade Law works closely with importers to evaluate eligibility, identify risks, and pursue the most effective path forward. If your company paid IEEPA duties, now is the time to assess your position and take action to protect your rights. 

Learn more: 

• Why You Need Your Very Own Ace Account 

• Supreme Court Rules IEEPA Tariffs Are Unlawful 

• Navigating Tariff Increases: Strategies to Minimize Tariff Costs Under the Trump Administration 

• Court Orders Refunds of IEEPA Tariffs – NOW Is the Time to File Litigation at the CIT 

• Webinar: Navigating Tariff Challenges: Mitigation Tools & Tactics 

• Webinar: ACE – Auditing Your Import History 

The CIT Order

In the order, Judge Eaton clearly stated that the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), the CIT has national jurisdiction and the ability to issue a broad order, that he is the judge to whom all IEEPA refunds have been assigned, and that he views the facts and law as clear. It is not clear whether he is also ordering the refunds for everyone else not in court, which will unquestionably be further litigated. 

We note that in response to written questions from the court, U.S. Customs and Border Protection stated that they were continuing to liquidate entries with IEEPA duties if they were deposited at the time of entry, that they were not issuing refunds, and that they had not issued instructions to liquidate without IEEPA duties. They further stated that any refunds will require a review to determine if there was a violation of other customs laws or if other duties, taxes, and fees were still owed. In other words, CBP intends to conduct detailed reviews of all entries before issuing refunds. The responses provided by CBP to the Judge were reviewed by the Judge and likely resulted in his rather strongly worded order. 

We anticipate a prompt filing of an appeal of this order to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), challenging both the broad nature of the relief and the potential applicability to parties not currently in court. We believe that the CAFC will set an expedited briefing process for this appeal, and we also anticipate that the United States will seek to have this order reviewed by the Supreme Court, but at least with respect to parties in court, this will be a very weak case. 

What Importers Should Do

This order is a significant positive development and strongly suggests that the court is not going to tolerate delays for tariff refunds. Importers in court may receive refunds in a matter of months, if not weeks, rather than years, as desired by the Trump administration.  

We continue to believe that filing litigation at the U.S. Court of International Trade is the surest bet to get refunds of IEEPA duties and to get refunds quickly.

Additionally, if you are not currently enrolled in ACE and/or have not set up your ACH Refund, we highly recommend you set up an ACE Account and set up your ACH Refund application through the ACE Portal.  Once an application for ACH Refund is successfully submitted and approved in the ACE Portal, all future refunds will be issued electronically to the designated U.S. bank account.

This is a quickly moving process, and we will keep you abreast as key changes come to light.  

If you have any questions regarding any other import or export-related matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office at info@diaztradelaw.com. 

Follow our tariffs & trade deals page to keep up with the latest trade news.

Read more:

• Supreme Court Rules IEEPA Tariffs Are Unlawful
• Reminder: CBP Now Issues Refunds via ACH Through ACE
• Why You Need Your Own Ace Account
• Tariffs at the Supreme Court!
• High Tariffs, High Stakes: The Rise in Customs Fraud and Enforcement Risk
• Bloomberg Law: Tariff Classification Basics
• ICYMI: Trump Administration Imposes 25% Steel and Aluminum Tariff
• ICYMI: President Trump Signs America First Trade Policy
• Trump Administration Announces Plan for Reciprocal Tariffs
• New Tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China: Key Updates for Importers
• Navigating Tariff Increases: Strategies to Minimize Tariff Costs Under the Trump Administration
• Webinar: Navigating Tariff Challenges: Mitigation Tools & Tactics
• Trump Administration Announces Reciprocal Tariffs

Filing Suit at the CIT for IEEPA Tariffs

Because the Supreme Court has upheld the Federal Circuit’s decision, the case is remanded to the Court of International Trade (CIT).  This remand was initially to determine whether it can issue a nationwide injunction to prevent the collection of future IEEPA tariffs, but this has been rendered moot as there is now a CBP CSMS message terminating the collection of the IEEPA tariffs. The secondary issue is whether and how, refunds will be paid.

The President has made it clear that the United States intends to fight the refund process. We are confident that importers who have filed suit in the CIT will be eligible to receive refunds for the IEEPA Tariffs they paid. However, the CIT will need to provide specific instructions for obtaining an order issuing refunds. It is far less clear whether, and how, refunds will be issued for those that do not go to Court.

We encourage all importers impacted by the IEEPA tariffs to file a court challenge in the CIT. We believe that doing so preserves the right to receive refunds for IEEPA tariffs paid without having to pursue a long additional post-decision process.

Legal Challenge to Section 122

On February 20, 2026, President Trump announced he would replace the IEEPA tariffs with a tariff based on Section 122. This was initially announced at 10% and took effect on February 24^th. The President has announced that he is increasing it to the lawful maximum of 15%, but the effective date has not yet been set. This tariff would remain in effect for up to 150 days. This tariff appears to be unlawful and we believe that a challenge should be filed as soon as ripe (i.e. an import must be made paying this duty). This lawsuit would have two potential impacts:

1. An injunction preventing the collection of this duty pending outcome of the lawsuit.   This would appear unlikely as the tariff can only remain in place for 150 days. However, as this tariff has little legal support (in fact, the Department of Justice has previously stated that it would not apply), this is not completely precluded.
2. Recovery of the monies collected. At this time the President has made it clear that he will not issue refunds absent a successful lawsuit by the specific importer in the case of the IEEPA duties, and would likely take the same approach with the 122 duties.

We encourage all importers impacted by the Section 122 tariffs to file a court challenge in the CIT.

Our office will continue to closely monitor to keep you informed.

If you have any questions regarding any other import or export-related matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office at info@diaztradelaw.com

Follow our tariffs & trade deals page to keep up with the latest trade news.

Read more:

• Supreme Court Rules IEEPA Tariffs Are Unlawful
• Tariffs at the Supreme Court!
• High Tariffs, High Stakes: The Rise in Customs Fraud and Enforcement Risk
• Courts Say Trump Tariffs are Unlawful, Now What?
• Bloomberg Law: Tariff Classification Basics
• ICYMI: Trump Administration Imposes 25% Steel and Aluminum Tariff
• ICYMI: President Trump Signs America First Trade Policy
• Trump Administration Announces Plan for Reciprocal Tariffs
• New Tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China: Key Updates for Importers
• Navigating Tariff Increases: Strategies to Minimize Tariff Costs Under the Trump Administration
• Webinar: Navigating Tariff Challenges: Mitigation Tools & Tactics
• Breaking Trade News: 10% Tariff, NTE Report, CIT Settlement
• Trump Administration Announces Reciprocal Tariffs
• The Latest on Tariffs, Key Information for Importers – Automobile and Venezuela Oil Update

The Court rejected the Trump Administration’s assertion that the statutory text of IEEPA delegates Congressional tariff powers to the President, finding that Congress would not have delegated “highly consequential power” through ambiguous language.

The majority wrote, “Based on two words separated by 16 others in … IEEPA, ‘regulate’ and ‘importation’–the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time. Those words cannot bear such weight.”

The decision was 6-3, with Justice Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh dissenting.

What This Means for Importers

The Trump Administration has made clear that, regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision, tariffs will remain a cornerstone of their trade and “America First” policy. 

On January 9, 2026, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said of the Supreme Court case: “Our expectation is that we’re going to win, and if we don’t win, then we know that we’ve got other tools that we can use that get us to the same place.” He also said in a Fox Business Interview that the Administration has a backup plan ready to go that would allow tariffs to be put “back into place almost immediately, should the Supreme Court rule against us.”

IEEPA is just one of the legislative avenues the Administration has to impose tariffs. Below is a summary of tariff tools available to the Administration.

The Administration will almost certainly pivot to another legal authority to maintain the current tariffs. 

Because the Supreme Court has upheld the Federal Circuit’s decision, the case is remanded to the Court of International Trade to determine whether it can issue a nationwide injunction, which we hope the Court of International Trade will resolve quickly.  

Importers who have filed suit at the Court of International Trade should be eligible to get their own injunction. Further, an individual injunction may not be required, given the Supreme Court decision. The key at this moment is how the Court of International Trade will implement the Supreme Court’s decision.  

We are confident that importers who have filed suit in the Court of International Trade should be eligible to receive refunds for the IEEPA Tariffs they paid. However, the Court of International Trade will need to provide specific instructions for issuing refunds. We are actively monitoring and will advise as soon as we have more information from the Court of International Trade.  

What Importers Should Do

Importers should view the current tariff environment as a long-term reality and proactively invest in strategies that legally minimize their duty exposure. There are several ways to LEGALLY minimize tariffs, including:

• Duty drawback
• Tariff engineering
• Country of origin change
• First sale
• Duty deferral
• Negotiate DDP Incoterms

Importers should also invest in compliance. The U.S. government has signaled that enforcement of trade law is a top priority and has levied hefty fines and even initiated criminal cases against importers evading duties.

Importers should:

• Conduct internal audits
• Refresh classification procedures
• Ensure the accuracy of valuation practices
• Revisit supplier agreements
• Tighten broker oversight
• Leverage technology
• Develop training for staff
• Strengthen recordkeeping practices
• Prepare for audits

Our office will continue to closely monitor and will keep you informed. Please review the following resources to stay informed on tariff updates and jumpstart your 2026 compliance program.

• Live Resource – Tariffs and Trade Deals
• Bloomberg Law: Tariff Classification Basics
• Bloomberg Law: Import Compliance & Training Programs
• Bloomberg Law: CBP’s Recordkeeping Requirements
• Navigating Tariff Increases: Strategies to Minimize Tariff Costs Under the Trump Administration
• Webinar: Navigating Tariff Challenges: Mitigation Tools & Tactics
• Webinar: IEEPA Tariffs, Supreme Court Developments, & Refund Implications

Diaz Trade Law can assist in auditing and/or developing importer compliance programs, setting up importer ACE accounts, and executing strategies to minimize duties. If you have questions about the IEEPA case or questions regarding any other import or export-related matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office at info@diaztradelaw.com.

Reporter Lori Ann LaRocco dives into the recent rise in customs bond insufficiency notices in her Feb. 6 article: President Trump’s tariffs fueled U.S. Customs bond market boom. Now billions hang on Supreme Court ruling.

Here are two excerpts from the piece:

“Jennifer Diaz, board-certified international attorney at Diaz Trade Law, said the number of bond insufficiency notices issued has quadrupled since 2017 and has accelerated recently due to the volatile tariff environment.”

“David Craven, counsel to Diaz Trade, said the threat of new replacement tariffs, coupled with the existing liability facing surety companies, suggests that any refunds would not be immediate. “The fact that liability has gone up, and Customs is now asking the sureties for collateral … operations are at risk, and sureties understandably don’t want to be caught holding the bag,” Craven said.”

Read the full article here.

Jennifer Diaz was also featured in a separate CNBC piece on Feb. 12: Trump tariffs leave importers with record-breaking $3.5 billion U.S. Customs bond funding shortfall.

Jen said:

“In totality, it makes sense that insufficiencies are more than double,” said Jennifer Diaz, attorney at Diaz Trade Law. “Many companies take it for granted that a $50,000 bond should be able to cover you for a one-year period,” she said. “But it might not. They are not utilizing set calculations, and don’t have anyone in their corner telling them that their bond obligation is higher.”

Read the full article here.

Background on New Steel and Aluminum Tariffs

On February 11, 2025, President Trump issued two Proclamations imposing enhanced import tariffs on steel and aluminum products under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. While additional Section 232 tariffs had been in place on certain steel and aluminum products since the first Trump Administration in 2018, the orders eliminated certain exemptions from the tariffs, expanded their scope to cover additional products, and increased the tariffs on covered aluminum goods from 10% to 25%.

On February 18, 2025, two Federal Register Notices were published that included lists of “derivative” steel and aluminum products subject to the 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum under Section 232. The Federal Register Notices, which include the specific Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) classifications for the derivative products in Annex 1, are available here (steel) and here (aluminum). The tariffs were increased from 25% to 50% effective June 4, 2025.1 On August 19, 2025, another Federal Register Notice was published, adding 407 HTSUS classifications to the list of products that will be considered as steel-aluminum derivative products.

Approaches to Valuation

CBP has published FAQs and CSMS messages on steel and aluminum about how to calculate and report the value of the steel and aluminum content of steel and aluminum derivative articles. However, there have been different interpretations of this guidance, including by CBP itself.

The FAQ reads,

“The value of the steel/aluminum content should be determined in accordance with the principles of the Customs Valuation Agreement, as implemented in 19 U.S.C. 1401a. Thus, the value of the steel/aluminum content is the total price paid or payable for that content, which is the total payment (direct or indirect, and exclusive of any costs, charges, or expenses incurred for transportation, insurance, and related services incident to the international shipment of the merchandise from the country of exportation to the country of importation) made/to be made for the steel/aluminum content by the buyer to, or for the benefit of, the seller of the steel/aluminum content. Normally, this would be based on the invoice paid by the buyer of the steel/aluminum content to, or for the benefit of, the seller of the steel/aluminum content.”

The CSMS message on steel states that “where the value of the steel content is less than the entered value of the imported article, the good must be reported on two lines.  The first line will represent the non-steel content, while the second line will represent the steel content.” The CSMS message states the same thing for aluminum.

Some importers interpret this guidance to mean that the value of the steel or aluminum content in a derivative product is the price the foreign manufacturer paid for the steel or aluminum. Other importers (and currently CBP’s Base Metals Center of Excellence and Expertise, in informal guidance) interpret this guidance to mean the value of steel or aluminum based on the price paid for the derivative product by the U.S. importer. CBP has issued Customs Forms 28s and 29s that reflect this interpretation.

CBP has not issued any formal guidance in the form of a customs ruling, additional FAQ, or Cargo System Messaging Service message addressing these different interpretations.

New CIT Case

A lawsuit was recently filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), challenging how CBP has been valuing and applying Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum derivative products. 

At the center of the lawsuit is the informal guidance provided by the Base Metals CEE mentioned above. Express Fasteners, Ltd. of Illinois filed the lawsuit, arguing that its imports of screws and fasteners were unlawfully assessed Section 232 steel duties.2 According to the plaintiff, CBP recently began applying 232 duties to the entire U.S. customs value of imported screws and fasteners, which includes machining, fabrication, overhead, the manufacturer’s profit, and other costs.

Express argues that the public Section 232 FAQs limit the 232 tariffs to the value of the steel content of the product, as determined by the value their foreign supplier paid for the steel, and that this change in valuation approach was never published and subjected to rulemaking procedures and is therefore an unlawful and arbitrary departure from established agency guidance. 

What Importers Should Do

Diaz Trade Law recommends taking the more conservative approach reflected in CBP’s most recent, albeit informal, guidance and reporting the steel and aluminum value based on the U.S. customs value of the steel and aluminum, which includes machining, fabrication, overhead, and the manufacturer’s profit. If the article includes non-steel, non-aluminum content such as wood or plastic, we recommend allocating the machining, fabrication, overhead, and profit across the steel/aluminum and non-steel/non-aluminum content in a reasonable manner. We further recommend monitoring the liquidation of affected entries and protesting them within 180 days based on the pending litigation. For importers who choose to report the value of the steel and aluminum based on the value their foreign manufacturer paid for these materials, we urge you to consider filing a prior disclosure to pay the duty difference if the court rules in favor of CBP in the pending Fasteners case. All importers should prioritize proper documentation and recordkeeping, as CBP may ask for detailed breakdowns and supporting analysis at any time.

Diaz Trade Law will continue to monitor for developments and will provide additional information as it becomes available. In the meantime, contact us for assistance with valuation procedures, recordkeeping, staff training, and more. 305-456-3830, info@diaztradelaw.com

Learn more:

• ICYMI: Trump Administration Imposes 25% Steel and Aluminum Tariff
• Bloomberg Law: CBP Recordkeeping Requirements
• Bloomberg Law: Import Compliance & Training Programs
• Bloomberg Law: Bloomberg Law Feature: Responding to CBP Form 28 or 29
• Webinar: Navigating CBP Regulations: Essential Practices for Import Success
• Webinar: Building and Maintaining an Effective Import Compliance Plan
• Webinar: Introduction to Importing

Background

Historically, the majority of CBP refunds for the overpayment of duties, taxes, and fees were transmitted via paper checks issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The issuance of electronic refunds via ACH has been available for some time, but opting-in for electronic refunds has been voluntary and limited in scope. In 2024 and 2025, approximately 30% of the refunds CBP issued annually were issued electronically.

On March 25, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Modernizing Payments To and From America’s Bank Account.” The order mandates the transition from paper checks to electronic payments for all Federal disbursements and receipts.

Electronic Refunds

To implement the electronic payments Executive Order, CBP published an Interim Final Rule on January 2, 2026, announcing that the agency will issue all refunds electronically (subject to certain exceptions under 31 CFR part 208) effective February 6, 2026. This rule applies to refunds issued to all importers, brokers, filers, sureties, service providers, facility operators, foreign trade zone operators, and carriers,  and any designated third parties listed on CBP Form 4811. After this date, CBP will not issue any refunds by check, unless a waiver has been approved. Comments on the Interim Final Rule are due March 3, 2026.

Importers who are not already enrolled in the ACH Refund program must submit an ACH Refund application through the ACE Portal. As part of the ACH Refund application, all applicants are required to use a U.S. bank account (note that foreign Importers of Record may have an ACE account, but a U.S. bank account must be used for the ACH application). Once an application for ACH Refund is successfully submitted and approved in the ACE Portal, all future refunds will be issued electronically to the designated U.S. bank account.

Importers who are currently enrolled in the ACH Refund program will continue to receive electronic refunds via ACH without interruption. More resources on the migration from CBP here.

Set Up Your ACE Account Today!

Importers must set up an ACE account to access the ACH Refund application, but there are many other reasons to set up and utilize an ACE account. ACE is the primary system for the international trade community to submit import and export data to communicate with CBP and other participating government agencies. CBP and the partner government agencies use ACE to collect, track, and process required trade information. 

An ACE account gives importers:

• Full visibility into import activity
• Improved compliance through real-time monitoring
• Electronic notice & document management
• Ability to manage payments, refunds, and statements
• Better data for audit preparation
• Streamlined communication with CBP

Additionally, if the IEEPA tariffs are eventually found to be unlawful and are refunded, processing refunds electronically through ACE will be far easier and more efficient for CBP.

Diaz Trade Law can help you set up your ACE account, connect your ACH information, assist you with reports, upload responses to CBP on your behalf, and more. Contact us today to get started: info@diaztradelaw.com or 305-456-3830.

Learn more:

• Webinar: ACE – Auditing Your Import History
• Why You Need Your Very Own Ace Account
• Webinar: Importing 101: A Crash Course in CBP Compliance and Best Practices
• Webinar: Navigating CBP Regulations: Essential Practices for Import Success

Background – 232 Investigation

The proclamation follows a nine-month Section 232 investigation into the effects of imports of semiconductors on the national security of the United States. The investigation, conducted by the Department of Commerce, found that semiconductors, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and their derivative products are being imported into the United States in such quantities and under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security of the United States.

The action is part of a broader Administration effort to create incentives for chipmakers to produce more semiconductors in the U.S. and decrease reliance on foreign chip manufacturers. The proclamation noted that the U.S. only manufactures 10% of the chips it requires and that reliance on foreign manufacturers poses a “significant economic and national ‌security risk.”

Scope – What’s Covered

“Semiconductor articles” covered by the proclamation are defined as imported products meeting certain technical parameters and that are classifiable under HTSUS 8471.50, 8471.80, or 8473.30. To be included within the definition of semiconductor articles, the imported products must be a logic integrated circuit, or an article that contains a logic integrated circuit, that meets certain technical parameters. Full technical parameters are available in the Annex.

Exceptions:

The tariff does not apply to chips that contribute to the buildout of the U.S. technology supply chain and the strengthening of domestic manufacturing capacity for derivatives of semiconductors.

In addition, the duty does not apply to semiconductor articles in the following categories:

• For use in U.S. data centers;
• For repairs or replacements performed in the United States;
• For research and development in the United States involving these chips
• For use by startups in the United States;
• For use in non-data center consumer electronics applications in the United States, including gaming, personal computing, professional visualization, workstation applications, and automotive applications;
• For use in non-data center civil industrial applications in the United States, including factory robotics and industrial machinery;
• For use in United States public sector applications

The Secretary of Commerce has broad authority to extend exemptions for other categories that “contribute to the strengthening of the United States technology supply chain or domestic manufacturing capacity for derivatives of semiconductors.”

What Importers Should Do 

We encourage all importers of semiconductors, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and their derivatives to review the proclamation and annex to determine how their business may be affected.

As CBP and the DoJ continue to prioritize enforcement, now more than ever it is critical for importers to examine their import compliance programs and ensure that adequate procedures are in place to correctly enter goods into the United States.

Diaz Trade Law can assist importers in reviewing their classification procedures, developing compliance plans and can guide importers in the event of a customs investigation. Contact us at 305-456-3830 or info@diaztradelaw.com.

For the latest on tariffs, check out our Tariffs & Trade Deals page.

Learn more:

• Bloomberg Law: Tariff Classification Basics
• Bloomberg Law: Import Compliance & Training Programs
• Bloomberg Law: CBP’s Recordkeeping Requirements
• Navigating Tariff Increases: Strategies to Minimize Tariff Costs Under the Trump Administration
• Webinar: Navigating Tariff Challenges: Mitigation Tools & Tactics
• Webinar: IEEPA Tariffs, Supreme Court Developments, & Refund Implications