The US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is developing a system to process refunds for billions of dollars in illegally collected tariffs within 45 days without requiring importers to file lawsuits, as revealed in a court filing. Brandon Lord, a senior CBP official, stated in a declaration to the US Court of International Trade on Friday that the total amount held for such tariffs is estimated to be approximately $166 billion. This announcement came as government lawyers met with a federal trade judge to establish a process for returning funds to about 330,000 importers.
The Court of International Trade's website described the meeting as a "closed conference," while its clerk, Gina Justice, referred to it as a "settlement conference." Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that a 1977 law addressing national emergencies did not provide legal justification for most of the Trump administration's global tariffs, leading to widespread legal challenges.
On Wednesday, Judge Richard Eaton of the Court of International Trade ordered CBP to begin refunding importers using its existing systems—with interest—in an order covering all affected importers, not just those who had taken their cases to court. Eaton asserted during a hearing, "Customs knows how to do this. The agency should be able to issue refunds simply on its system, which are regularly provided when importers are found to have overpaid initially." He emphasized that CBP finalizes entry costs on shipments without the tariff, effectively issuing refunds as part of its daily operations.
Lord's filing on Friday indicated that over 330,000 importers have made more than 53 million entries "in which they have deposited or paid duties imposed pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act." He noted that the new refunds process would "require minimal submission from importers." Separately, a group of Democratic attorneys general and governors across 24 US states announced on Thursday that they would sue the Trump administration over its recent round of tariffs, arguing that the president lacks authority to impose them and demanding refunds for additional costs incurred by states.
Source: www.theguardian.com