Section 122 Tariffs: Status Update
Navigating Section 122 Tariff Litigation: Current Status and Essential Strategies to Preserve Refund Rights
The landscape of international trade law continues to experience rapid shifts, and importers who paid duties under the temporary Section 122 global tariff surcharge find themselves at a critical juncture. Although the 150-day statutory window for the Section 122 temporary import surcharge has concluded, the legal and financial ripples of this policy are far from over. Importers who absorbed these costs are closely monitoring the courts to determine whether billions of dollars in collected duties will ultimately be returned. Understanding where the litigation stands today and how to actively protect your company’s right to potential refunds is vital for safeguarding your bottom line.
The current status of Section 122 litigation is defined by active appellate proceedings and narrow judicial relief. Following the invocation of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a multi-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled that the administration’s application did not satisfy the statute’s strict requirements regarding balance-of-payments deficits. However, unlike sweeping rulings seen in past trade disputes, the CIT limited its initial refund order strictly to the specific plaintiffs involved in that action. While the government quickly appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the appellate court put the lower court’s refund mandate on hold via a judicial stay. Consequently, no broad-based refunds are being paid out while the appeal remains pending, and importers cannot rely on an automated administrative refund process like those established in other trade programs.
Because refunds will not flow automatically to affected businesses, importers should take proactive steps to preserve their legal standing. Across every major recent tariff challenge, judicial relief has consistently been restricted to parties that actively asserted their claims. Relying solely on the pending appellate outcome or waiting for a universal administrative fix carries significant risk, particularly as the statutory 180-day window to file administrative protests against individual entry liquidations continues to run. Businesses should audit their Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) records to identify all entries bearing the Section 122 surcharge, track liquidation dates diligently, and evaluate whether filing protective administrative protests or individual CIT litigation is necessary for their specific import profile.
Navigating the intersection of customs liquidation rules, ongoing federal appeals, and protective litigation requires specialized legal oversight. To ensure that your enterprise retains its full legal eligibility for potential duty recoveries, partnering with experienced international trade counsel is essential. Contact our customs law practice today to evaluate your historical entry data and implement a robust strategy to protect your right to a refund.
Disclaimer: This blog post is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute formal legal advice. Importers affected by Section 122 actions should consult qualified customs and international trade counsel to review their specific entry records and compliance obligations.