Ten members of the US House of Representatives have told Customs and Border Protection that its own paperwork is costing small importers the tariff refunds the Supreme Court ordered seven months ago. In a letter dated September 9, 2026 and addressed to CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott, the lawmakers say the agency is failing to approve importer accounts in its refund portal within the 90-day window that CBP itself imposed, which leaves companies unable to file for money they are legally owed.
The letter, led by Representatives Haley Stevens of Michigan and Steven Horsford of Nevada, is the first formal congressional intervention aimed at the mechanics of the refund process rather than at the size of the refunds or at who ultimately benefits from them. It lands as CBP’s Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries system, known as CAPE, sits with its third and final phase postponed indefinitely and roughly $1.7 billion in approved refunds stranded for want of banking details.
For retailers and e-commerce sellers, the dispute is not academic. Refund cash has been the single largest swing factor in second-quarter results across US retail, from Walmart’s near-$2.9 billion to Macy’s $116 million disclosed this week. The companies now at risk of losing their refunds are the ones with the least capacity to absorb the loss: small and mid-sized importers whose entries are aging out of the administrative window while they wait for a portal account to be switched on.
In short
- Ten House Democrats wrote to CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott on September 9, 2026 asking the agency to “expeditiously take all necessary steps” to refund every importer that paid duties under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
- The 90-day trap: CBP requires refund requests within 90 days of an entry’s liquidation, but the lawmakers say CBP is in some cases taking longer than 90 days to approve the CAPE account an importer needs before it can file at all.
- The money at stake: about $166 billion in IEEPA duties across roughly 53 million entries and 330,000 importers, according to court filings summarized by trade counsel. As of August 21, CBP had accepted $132.5 billion into CAPE and sent $106.6 billion to the Treasury.
- Phase 3 has no date: the tranche covering “finally liquidated” entries, the very entries that miss the 90-day window, was due August 20 and remains delayed while CBP builds new validations, per a sworn declaration filed August 25.
- Retail exposure: large chains have already booked their refunds as margin or price cuts; the letter’s warning is that smaller importers may end up paying an unlawful tariff twice, once at the border and once through forfeiture.
What does the September 9 letter actually ask CBP to do?
The letter is short and unusually specific about the failure it describes. The signatories write that businesses in their districts “have reported significant logistical hurdles that they must clear to receive a refund.” They identify two hurdles in particular. First, CBP must formally recognize an importer’s account in CAPE before that importer can submit a refund declaration. Second, CBP “set a deadline requiring requests for refunds to be submitted within 90 days of the original duties being liquidated.”
The problem is the collision between the two. “In some cases CBP is failing to approve importer accounts within 90 days of liquidation, making it impossible for importers to meet the 90-day deadline,” the letter states. The lawmakers add that “many of the importers facing the prospect of missing out entirely on refunds are small businesses operating on thin margins for whom full repayment of illegal tariff payments is critical.”
The ask is broad rather than procedural. The letter does not propose a specific fix such as tolling the 90-day clock or automatically enrolling importers of record. Instead it urges the commissioner “to expeditiously take all necessary steps to refund all American importers that paid duties under the since-invalidated IEEPA tariff regime,” and asks for a response. The strongest line frames the stakes: “Under no circumstances should these companies bear the brunt of both the tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court and the denial of tariff refunds because of administrative mismanagement of the CAPE system.”
Stevens, whose Michigan district includes a dense cluster of automotive suppliers and small manufacturers, put it more bluntly in comments carried by the IANS news agency: “Michigan businesses should not have to pay the price once, let alone twice, first through illegal tariffs, and again because government red tape prevents them from getting their money back.”
Why does a 90-day refund window exist at all?
The 90-day figure is not an invention of the refund program. It comes from the ordinary customs statute, and understanding it explains why the backlog is so damaging. Every import entry passes through a process called liquidation, in which CBP finalizes the duties, taxes and fees owed on that shipment. For most entries, liquidation happens automatically about 314 days after the goods arrive, according to trade counsel who have tracked the CAPE rollout.
How liquidation and reliquidation work
Once an entry is liquidated, CBP retains the authority under 19 U.S.C. 1501 to reopen and correct it on its own initiative, a step called voluntary reliquidation, for 90 days. That is the mechanism CAPE uses to pay refunds: the agency reliquidates the entry without the IEEPA duties and sends the difference, plus interest, to the importer’s bank account through the Automated Clearing House.
The importer separately has 180 days from liquidation to file a protest under 19 U.S.C. 1514. A protest keeps the entry open and preserves the importer’s rights, but it is a formal legal filing, not a portal upload, and many small importers never file one because they were told CAPE would handle the refund.
What “finally liquidated” means for a refund
When the 90-day reliquidation window closes and no protest is on file, the entry is treated as finally liquidated. At that point CBP generally cannot reopen it without a court order. Trade counsel describe this as the single most important dividing line in the entire refund exercise, because entries on the wrong side of it fall outside CAPE’s first two phases entirely. The government has argued in court that importers with finally liquidated entries who did not sue are not entitled to a refund at all, a position now on appeal.
The earlier CAPE phases were built around that clock. Phase 1, which opened on April 20, 2026, accepted entries that were either unliquidated or no more than 80 days past liquidation, leaving CBP roughly ten days of margin to act before the 90-day cutoff. An importer whose account approval takes longer than that margin watches its entries slide from the “easy” tranche into the “court order required” tranche while it waits.
How does the CAPE backlog collide with the calendar?
The letter’s allegation is that the account-approval step is the bottleneck. CAPE runs inside CBP’s Automated Commercial Environment, or ACE. To file a refund declaration, an importer of record or its licensed customs broker must hold an ACE Portal account, the account must be recognized for CAPE purposes, and the importer must have loaded valid ACH banking details so that the Treasury can transmit the payment.
The account-approval bottleneck
Large importers already had ACE Portal accounts because they use them for other customs filings. Many small importers did not. They relied on a broker to file entries and never set up their own portal presence. For those companies, the refund process began with an account application rather than a refund declaration, and it is that application step which the lawmakers say is running past 90 days in some cases.
The consequence is mechanical rather than discretionary. Nobody at CBP has to decide to deny a refund. The calendar does it. An entry that liquidated in early June and whose importer’s account was approved in mid-September has already finally liquidated, and the only route to recovery is the delayed Phase 3 or a lawsuit at the Court of International Trade. This is the pattern that shopappy examined when 4.36 million entries failed CAPE’s validation checks in July: the system’s friction lands hardest on the smallest filers.
Phase 3 with no launch date
CAPE’s third phase is the one designed to catch finally liquidated entries, subject to court-ordered reliquidation. It was first expected by the end of July, then set for August 20, and then postponed. On August 25, Brandon Lord, executive director of CBP’s Trade Programs Directorate, filed a declaration in Freestyle World, Inc. v. United States (CIT No. 26-01088), responding to an August 5 order from Judge Richard Eaton. Lord said the delay stems from building new validations “to ensure that no duty adjustments other than the IEEPA refunds are made to refunds on finally liquidated entries,” and he gave no opening date.
That declaration is the backdrop the letter arrives against. The lawmakers do not mention Phase 3 by name, but every importer they describe, one whose account arrived after the 90-day clock ran out, is now a Phase 3 case by definition. As shopappy reported when CBP postponed Phase 3 without a replacement date, roughly $11.4 billion of the refund pool sits in that tranche according to trade counsel estimates, about 6.9% of the total.
How much money has moved, and how much has not?
The refund program is enormous by the standards of customs administration, and by most measures it has moved quickly. The figures below are drawn from CBP statistics reported in court filings and summarized by trade compliance advisers, with their as-of dates.
| As of | Accepted into CAPE | Sent to Treasury | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 11, 2026 | 15.1 million entries validated | About $35.5 billion (estimated) | 8.3 million entries reliquidated; 1,880 refunds unpaid for missing ACH details |
| July 14, 2026 | About $121.75 billion | About $86.3 billion | 9,837 refunds untransmitted for missing ACH details |
| August 21, 2026 | About $132.5 billion | About $106.6 billion | 272,029 declarations filed; 191,494 passed file validation; 26.4 million entries validated; 18.76 million reliquidated |
Set against the roughly $166 billion pool cited in court filings, the August figures imply that about 80% of the money has been accepted for processing and about 64% has actually been certified for payment. The gap between those two numbers is not only Phase 3. It also includes the stranded refunds: approximately $1.7 billion approved but unpayable because around 10,000 importers have not loaded banking information into ACE, a figure that grew from about $1.2 billion in July.
Two other frictions surfaced in late August. Customs attorneys reported that CBP was offsetting IEEPA refunds against debts that remain disputed, including state tax bills and CBP bills under protest, and in some cases applying full Section 232 rates to entire entry values before netting the increase against the refund. Regulation 19 C.F.R. 24.72 limits offsets to amounts that are “legally fixed and undisputed.” CBP has said it is not offsetting refunds against disputed debts; at least one importer has told the Court of International Trade otherwise, with documented examples.
Who signed the letter, and what does the signatory list signal?
The ten signatories are all Democrats, which limits the letter’s direct leverage over an agency run by a Republican administration. The list is nonetheless telling for where the pressure is coming from.
| Member | State | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Haley M. Stevens | Michigan | Lead signatory; district heavy in automotive suppliers and small manufacturers |
| Steven Horsford | Nevada | Co-lead; wrote to ten retail and logistics CEOs in April on passing refunds to consumers |
| Hillary J. Scholten | Michigan | West Michigan furniture and manufacturing base |
| Brittany Pettersen | Colorado | Suburban Denver small-business constituency |
| André Carson | Indiana | Indianapolis logistics hub |
| Eleanor Holmes Norton | District of Columbia | Non-voting delegate |
| Emanuel Cleaver II | Missouri | Kansas City distribution corridor |
| Seth Moulton | Massachusetts | North Shore manufacturers and importers |
| Dina Titus | Nevada | Las Vegas retail and hospitality supply chains |
| Mary Gay Scanlon | Pennsylvania | Philadelphia-area port and warehouse district |
Horsford’s involvement connects two strands of the refund debate. On April 23, 2026, he led a letter to the chief executives of Walmart, Home Depot, Target, Best Buy, FedEx, Amazon, Lowe’s, Costco, UPS and DHL asking how they would ensure a refund pool he put at $175 billion reached “the working families who ultimately paid higher prices at the checkout counter,” and seeking commitments against using the money for executive pay or buybacks. The September 9 letter flips the concern: it is no longer about whether big companies share their refunds, but whether small ones get any at all.
The letter also cites its legal authority carefully. Its first footnote is Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the Supreme Court decision, and its second is Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, the Court of International Trade case in which the government was ordered to refund IEEPA duties. That framing matters because CBP’s defense of the 90-day rule rests on the ordinary customs statute, and the lawmakers are arguing that an ordinary rule should not be allowed to defeat an extraordinary court-ordered remedy.
What have the courts already decided?
The refunds exist because of litigation, and the remaining uncertainty is also litigation. The sequence is worth setting out because it explains why CBP is building a portal at all rather than simply cutting checks.
The Supreme Court ruling of February 20, 2026
In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the Supreme Court held that the president had no authority under IEEPA to impose the sweeping tariffs announced in 2025. The ruling did not itself order refunds; it invalidated the legal basis for the duties. The money question moved to the Court of International Trade in New York, which since March 2026 has ordered the government to refund the duties, including in Atmus Filtration.
The universal refund order and the Federal Circuit appeal
Judge Eaton’s orders extended the refund obligation to importers that had not filed their own lawsuits. On June 3, 2026 the government appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, arguing that the CIT’s orders amount to impermissible universal injunctions that grant relief to non-parties. Oral argument was scheduled for August 19, according to trade counsel tracking the case. No decision had been reported as of this writing. If the government prevails, importers with finally liquidated entries who did not sue could be left with no administrative route to a refund, which is precisely the group the September 9 letter is worried about.
A parallel fight over class certification, argued on August 6 in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, asks the CIT to certify a nationwide class of importers locked out of CAPE. shopappy covered the hearing when the trade court weighed a refund class for 330,000 importers. A ruling either way would reshape the leverage behind the lawmakers’ request: a certified class would give small importers a collective vehicle, while a denial would leave each one to file its own protective action.
What have the refunds meant for retailers so far?
The letter’s concern for small importers is sharpened by how visibly the large ones have already collected. The second-quarter reporting season turned IEEPA refunds into a standard line in retail earnings releases, and the amounts disclosed illustrate why a forfeited refund is material for anyone running a smaller version of the same import book.
| Retailer | Refund disclosed | Quarter | Stated use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Walmart | About $2.9 billion | Q2 FY2027 (to July 31) | Mostly reinvested in price rollbacks |
| Target | $994 million pre-tax | Q2 2026 | Largely offset to cost, per company commentary |
| Home Depot | $730 million | Q2 2026 | Framed as cost offset |
| Macy’s | $116 million | Q2 2026 (reported September 10) | About $20 million to earnings; remainder to store renovations, brand investment and fuel-cost mitigation |
| PVH | About $100 million | Q2 2026 | Carried the quarter’s profit |
| Burlington | $55 million | Q2 2026 | All reinvested in lower prices |
| Dillard’s | $37.2 million | Q2 2026 | Booked to profit; net income up 34% |
Macy’s is the freshest data point. Retail Dive reported on September 10 that the department store group had received the full $116 million it expected, that roughly $20 million flowed to earnings, and that gross margin expanded 180 basis points to 41.5% with the refund included but only 10 basis points without it. Evercore ISI analyst Michael Binetti described reinvesting refunds into price as a “race to the bottom” concern and said the firm preferred Macy’s approach.
The contrast with the small-importer picture is stark. When Walmart put its $2.9 billion refund into shelf prices, it did so with a dedicated customs compliance team, an established ACE Portal presence and the banking details already on file. A company importing $2 million of goods a year through a broker had none of those things in April, and the 90-day clock did not wait for it to acquire them. The same asymmetry showed up when Burlington chose to spend its $55 million refund on prices: the decision was about what to do with the money, never about whether it would arrive.
What should small importers do while CBP responds?
The letter asks CBP to fix the problem, but it does not pause the clock, and there is no indication CBP has changed its rules in response. Trade counsel who have advised on the CAPE rollout consistently recommend the same defensive steps, and none of them depend on Congress.
- Pull a liquidation report today. ACE reports show the liquidation date for every entry. Any entry liquidated more than 90 days ago without a protest on file is already finally liquidated and belongs in Phase 3 or in court. Any entry inside the window is the priority.
- File a protest on entries approaching day 90. A protest under 19 U.S.C. 1514, filed within 180 days of liquidation, keeps the entry open regardless of when the CAPE account is approved. It is the single most effective way to stop the calendar from converting an eligible refund into a court case.
- Apply for the ACE Portal account in the importer’s own name, not only the broker’s. Refunds are paid to the importer of record. A broker’s account can file the declaration but the ACH details must sit on the importer’s record.
- Load ACH banking details immediately. Around 10,000 importers with approved refunds worth about $1.7 billion are unpaid for this reason alone. Non-resident importers without a US bank account should resolve this before filing.
- Reconcile the refund against the entry. Given the offset allegations, compare each refund received with the IEEPA duties originally paid plus interest. Shortfalls should be documented and, if disputed, raised with CBP or counsel.
- Consider a protective action at the Court of International Trade. For finally liquidated entries, counsel at several firms advise filing a protective suit while continuing to pursue CAPE in parallel, so that rights survive whatever the Federal Circuit decides.
Importers should also keep the refund program separate from ordinary duty recovery mechanisms. Standard duty drawback claims for re-exported goods run on their own statute and timeline and do not preserve IEEPA refund rights; an entry on a drawback claim was in fact excluded from CAPE Phase 1.
What happens next?
The letter requests a response but sets no deadline, and CBP is under no statutory obligation to answer a group of minority-party members. The more consequential pressure points sit elsewhere, on a calendar that is now fairly well defined.
The first is Judge Eaton’s docket. CBP’s August 25 declaration in Freestyle World was a response to a court order, and the judge has shown a willingness to demand status reports, to ask whether entry data was deleted, and to weigh a nationwide class. A further order compelling a Phase 3 launch date, or directing CBP to toll the 90-day window for importers whose accounts were pending, would do more for the letter’s constituents than the letter itself.
The second is the Federal Circuit. If the appeals court narrows the CIT’s refund orders to named plaintiffs, the universe of importers who need a lawsuit rather than a portal upload expands sharply, and the small-business problem the lawmakers describe becomes a structural feature rather than an administrative lapse. If the court affirms, CBP’s obligation to pay non-litigants stands and the only remaining question is speed.
The third is Phase 3 itself. CBP has said it is building validations to make sure that reliquidating finally liquidated entries adjusts nothing except the IEEPA duties. Once those validations are complete, the tranche that catches importers who missed the 90-day window can open, and the account-approval backlog stops being a forfeiture risk and becomes a waiting-time problem. Until then, every week that passes moves more entries across the line the letter describes.
For the retail industry the stakes run in both directions. Large chains have already banked or spent their refunds, and their third-quarter guidance no longer depends on CAPE. The suppliers, wholesalers and marketplace sellers behind them have not, and a supply base that absorbed an unlawful tariff for a year without recovery will price that experience into the 2027 buying season. That is why a two-page letter from ten members of the House minority is worth more attention than its political weight alone suggests.
Frequently asked questions
What is the 90-day tariff refund deadline?
Under 19 U.S.C. 1501, CBP can voluntarily reliquidate an entry, which is how it pays IEEPA refunds through CAPE, only within 90 days of the entry’s original liquidation. After that, the entry is finally liquidated and generally cannot be reopened without a court order. The September 9 letter says CBP is in some cases taking longer than 90 days to approve the CAPE account an importer needs before it can file.
Who wrote the September 9, 2026 letter to CBP?
Ten Democratic members of the House of Representatives, led by Haley Stevens of Michigan and Steven Horsford of Nevada, and also signed by Hillary Scholten, Brittany Pettersen, André Carson, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Emanuel Cleaver II, Seth Moulton, Dina Titus and Mary Gay Scanlon. It was addressed to CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott.
How much has CBP refunded so far?
As of August 21, 2026, CBP had accepted about $132.5 billion in potential and certified refunds into CAPE and sent about $106.6 billion, including interest, to the Treasury for payment, according to CBP figures summarized by trade compliance advisers. The total pool is estimated at roughly $166 billion.
What is CAPE Phase 3 and why is it delayed?
Phase 3 covers finally liquidated entries, which require court-ordered reliquidation. It was expected by late July, then set for August 20, and was postponed. CBP’s Brandon Lord told the Court of International Trade on August 25 that the agency is building validations to ensure only IEEPA duties are adjusted on those entries, and he gave no new date.
Can an importer protect a refund if its CAPE account is still pending?
Yes, in most cases. Filing a protest under 19 U.S.C. 1514 within 180 days of liquidation keeps the entry open and preserves refund rights regardless of when the portal account is approved. Counsel also advise a protective action at the Court of International Trade for entries that have already finally liquidated.
Why are $1.7 billion in refunds stranded?
Because roughly 10,000 importers with approved refunds have not loaded valid ACH banking details into their ACE Portal accounts, so the Treasury cannot transmit the payment. The figure grew from about $1.2 billion in mid-July to about $1.7 billion by late August.
Which retailers have disclosed IEEPA refunds?
Walmart (about $2.9 billion), Target ($994 million pre-tax), Home Depot ($730 million), Macy’s ($116 million), PVH (about $100 million), Burlington ($55 million) and Dillard’s ($37.2 million) have all put figures on their second-quarter refunds, with uses ranging from price cuts to margin support.
Does the letter change CBP’s rules?
No. It is a request from ten members of the House minority and carries no legal force. Any change to the 90-day window, the account-approval process or the Phase 3 timeline would have to come from CBP itself or from an order of the Court of International Trade.
What is the status of the government’s appeal?
The government appealed the CIT’s universal refund orders to the Federal Circuit on June 3, 2026, arguing they improperly extend relief to importers that did not sue. Oral argument was scheduled for August 19 according to trade counsel; no decision had been reported as of September 11, 2026.