IEEPA vs Section 301 vs Section 232: which Trump tariffs are refundable?

The refundability matrix at a glance

The rest of this article walks through each programme — what it is, where it sits on your ACE ITRAC, and whether there's anything to be done with it post-SCOTUS.

IEEPA: refundable, time-pressured, and complicated by stacking

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 was designed for sanctions and asset freezes, not customs duties. The Trump administration's 2025 use of IEEPA as a tariff vehicle was unprecedented; the Supreme Court's reading of the statute as not authorising the imposition of duties was, in the majority's view, the only reading consistent with the major-questions doctrine and Article I's grant of taxing power to Congress.

Nine implementing executive orders were rescinded by Executive Order 14389:

1. EO 14193 (Feb 1, 2025) — Canada fentanyl 25%
2. EO 14194 (Feb 1, 2025) — Mexico fentanyl 25%
3. EO 14195 (Feb 1, 2025) — China fentanyl 10% (later raised)
4. EO 14256 (Apr 2, 2025) — "Reciprocal" baseline 10%
5. EO 14257 (Apr 2, 2025) — Country-specific reciprocal adjustments
6. EO 14266 (Apr 9, 2025) — Reciprocal pause / China escalation
7. EO 14289 (Apr 29, 2025) — Stacking cap on IEEPA + §232
8. EO 14298 (May 12, 2025) — China reduction post-Geneva
9. EO 14346 (Sep 5, 2025) — Late escalation orders (consolidated)

Every dollar of duty collected under any of the above is refundable. CAPE is the channel for unliquidated entries plus entries liquidated within 80 days before April 20, 2026 (Phase 1, ~63% of the pool); the rest is preserved via CF-19 protest pending Phase 2. We cover the mechanics in detail in our companion piece on CAPE.

On your ACE ITRAC, IEEPA duty appears as a secondary HTSUS line under Chapter 99, typically in the 9903 series. The exact codes depend on which EO applied:

• 9903.01.10 series — Canada IEEPA fentanyl
• 9903.01.20 series — Mexico IEEPA fentanyl
• 9903.01.30-9903.01.34 — China IEEPA fentanyl (rate varied)
• 9903.02.xx — Reciprocal baseline 10%
• 9903.02.40-9903.02.99 — Country-specific reciprocal adjustments

If you see one of these codes on your entry summary lines, that's an IEEPA refund candidate. If you see a 9903 code outside this range, it's almost certainly Section 301 or Section 232 — and not refundable.

Section 301: untouched by SCOTUS, exclusions are the only path

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC § 2411) is the U.S. Trade Representative's authority to impose tariffs in response to foreign unfair trade practices. The China §301 tariffs imposed in 2018-2019 — Lists 1, 2, 3 and 4A — remain in force. The Trump administration added further §301 actions in 2025, including expanded coverage of semiconductors, EVs, and critical-minerals-derived goods.

SCOTUS did not touch §301. The statute's procedural requirements (USTR investigation, public comment, notice) are well-settled, and the Supreme Court has consistently upheld §301 actions against APA challenges.

On ACE ITRAC, §301 duties appear under 9903.88.xx (China List 1-4) and the newer 9903.91.xx series. They are reported as a separate line item on the entry summary, typically at 7.5%, 25% or 100% rates depending on the list and the product.

What is recoverable on a §301 line:

• Product exclusions — USTR has, throughout the §301 programme, granted exclusions for specific HTS codes. Each exclusion is retroactive to the original entry date and remains claimable via PSC (unliquidated) or Protest (liquidated <180 days). Exclusion lookups are at the USTR §301 page.
• Misclassification — if your HTS code was wrong and the correct HTS is not on a §301 list, the §301 duty was not legally owed. Refund via PSC/Protest.
• Country of origin — §301 duty is owed only on goods of Chinese origin under CBP's substantial-transformation test. Origin-engineered goods (e.g. final assembly in Vietnam or Mexico) may qualify for a refund if origin was incorrectly declared.

What is not recoverable: §301 duty correctly assessed on a correctly classified Chinese-origin product. SCOTUS has not opened that door.

Section 232: steel, aluminium, auto — the cap that mattered

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 USC § 1862) authorises the President to impose tariffs on national-security grounds following a Department of Commerce investigation. The Trump administration's §232 actions span:

• Steel and steel derivatives — 25% (raised to 50% mid-2025)
• Aluminium and aluminium derivatives — 10% (raised to 25%)
• Autos and auto parts — 25% on most-favoured-nation basis from June 2025
• Critical minerals and derivatives — added 2025
• Pharmaceuticals (active ingredients) — under §232 investigation, partial implementation

SCOTUS did not touch §232. The Court's only material brush with the statute was American Institute for International Steel v. United States (2019), which upheld §232's constitutionality. White & Case's post-IEEPA analysis walks through why §232 was insulated by SCOTUS's narrow IEEPA holding.

On ACE ITRAC, §232 duties appear under 9903.80.xx (steel), 9903.85.xx (aluminium), and 9903.94.xx (autos and parts). They cannot be refunded via CAPE.

The one place §232 interacts with IEEPA refundability is EO 14289 (April 29, 2025), the stacking cap. EO 14289 capped the combined effective rate where IEEPA Canada/Mexico fentanyl tariffs would otherwise stack on top of §232 steel/aluminium or §232 auto tariffs. Specifically, for goods subject to both IEEPA fentanyl and §232 steel/aluminium, only the higher of the two applied; for goods subject to both IEEPA fentanyl and §232 autos, only §232 applied. EO 14289 was never rescinded by EO 14389 — it is structurally a §232 implementation order, not an IEEPA imposition order.

AD/CVD: untouched, but worth re-examining

Anti-dumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders are administered by the Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission under 19 USC §§ 1671 and 1673. They are case-by-case orders against specific products from specific countries — currently around 700 active orders, growing year-on-year.

SCOTUS did not touch AD/CVD; nothing in Learning Resources implicates the statutory framework. AD/CVD duty appears on ACE ITRAC under the relevant Chapter 99 case codes (e.g. A-570-xxx for AD against China, paired with the entry-line HTSUS).

What is worth re-examining: scope rulings. Many AD/CVD orders have ambiguous product scope — covering "certain" steel pipe, "certain" tyres, etc. CBP applies the scope as published; importers can request a scope ruling from Commerce to clarify whether a specific product is in or out. Out-of-scope rulings are retroactive. Many mid-market importers paid AD/CVD on borderline-scope products throughout 2024-2025 without ever seeking a ruling.

Administrative reviews (annual) and changed-circumstances reviews can also adjust dumping margins retroactively, occasionally producing refunds. None of these are "IEEPA-easy" — they are 12-24 month proceedings — but they are real recovery paths for importers who paid material AD/CVD.

MFN duty: the floor everyone pays, recoverable only via classification or FTA

MFN — most-favoured-nation, also called Column 1 General — is the base WTO-bound rate that applies to imports from every country with normal trade relations. It is set by Congress in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) and ranges from 0% on many capital goods to 30%+ on textiles, footwear and certain agricultural items.

SCOTUS did not touch MFN. There is no Trump-era MFN action — the rates are stable, statutory, and bound by U.S. WTO commitments.

What's recoverable on MFN duty:

• FTA preference. If your goods qualified under USMCA, KORUS, CAFTA-DR, GSP, or any other U.S. FTA but the broker filed without claiming preference, the MFN duty paid is recoverable via PSC (unliquidated) or Protest (liquidated within 180 days). The CRS R48549 report on tariff structure and refund options walks through the PSC mechanics.
• Classification correction. If your HTS code was wrong and the correct code carries a lower MFN rate, refund the difference via PSC/Protest.
• First-sale valuation. If your dutiable value was computed from the U.S. importer's purchase price when a qualifying earlier sale (factory-to-middleman) had a lower price, you may be entitled to a first-sale valuation refund.
• Chapter 98 returned-goods, repair, or U.S.-origin claims. Goods returning to the U.S. after temporary export, U.S.-origin goods returning unaltered, and goods exported for repair often qualify under Chapter 98 provisions for partial or full duty exemption.

Section 122: the new 15% global tariff that replaced IEEPA

On March 14, 2026, three weeks after the SCOTUS ruling, the President signed Executive Order 14396 invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC § 2132) to impose a 15% baseline tariff on imports from all countries. Section 122 authorises the President to impose temporary across-the-board tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days in response to a "fundamental international payments problem" — i.e. a balance-of-payments emergency.

Section 122 was last used by President Nixon in 1971 (the "Nixon Shock"), which is precedent enough to make legal scholars nervous about its 2026 application. Multiple lawsuits are pending in the Court of International Trade challenging whether the U.S. balance-of-payments situation in 2026 actually meets the statutory threshold.

For now, Section 122 is operative. The 15% rate applies on top of MFN, on top of any §301/§232 stack, and on top of AD/CVD. It is not refundable. There is no administrative refund mechanism, and the 150-day window in the statute means the question may become moot before the courts rule.

Importantly, Section 122 is the administration's declared replacement revenue for the struck IEEPA tariffs. The Tax Foundation tariff tracker models §122 as recovering ~60% of the lost IEEPA revenue. For importers, this means the post-SCOTUS savings are smaller than the headline IEEPA refund implies — much of the IEEPA-rate exposure has been replaced by §122 going forward.

EO 14289 stacking: the rule that survives

Executive Order 14289 (April 29, 2025) capped how IEEPA Canada/Mexico fentanyl tariffs could stack with Section 232 steel/aluminium and auto tariffs. It was a relief order, not an imposition order — and EO 14389 left it untouched. It still governs how the rates would have applied during the IEEPA period, which matters for refund math.

The rule, simplified:

• IEEPA fentanyl + §232 steel/aluminium: only the higher rate applied. If §232 was 25% and IEEPA was 25%, you paid 25% (one), not 50% (stacked). Refund: only if IEEPA was actually collected.
• IEEPA fentanyl + §232 auto: only §232 applied. IEEPA was suppressed entirely. Refund: usually nothing — IEEPA wasn't paid.
• IEEPA reciprocal + §232: EO 14289 did not cover this combination. Both were collected. Refund: full IEEPA reciprocal portion.
• IEEPA fentanyl + §301: EO 14289 did not cover this combination. Both were collected on Chinese-origin goods caught by both regimes. Refund: full IEEPA fentanyl portion.

CBP's CAPE validator applies these rules automatically. Over-claims (treating IEEPA as collected when it was actually suppressed by EO 14289) are rejected. CRS R48549 documents the stacking rules in detail and is the canonical reference.

Strategic implications for forward planning

Refundability is one half of the post-SCOTUS picture. The other half is forward exposure — the duties that survived and the new ones that replaced IEEPA.

• Origin engineering for §301. §301 still bites Chinese-origin goods. Substantial-transformation in Vietnam, Mexico, India or Malaysia genuinely shifts origin, but only if the transformation is real (not "screwdriver assembly"). CBP's enforcement on transshipment has tightened materially in 2025-2026.
• FTA re-checks for §122 mitigation. Section 122's 15% does not apply to USMCA-qualifying goods or KORUS/CAFTA-DR origin goods that meet the rules of origin. Importers who weren't claiming FTA preference under IEEPA (because the IEEPA reciprocal regime applied regardless of FTA status) now need to re-check FTA eligibility — preferences that were dormant are now valuable again.
• First-sale valuation for §232. Where §232 stays at 25-50% on steel/aluminium derivatives, first-sale (factory-price) valuation can reduce the §232 base by 15-30%. This is a long-running structural saving, not a one-time refund.
• Chapter 98 audit. U.S.-origin returned goods, goods exported for repair, and capital equipment returning after foreign use can qualify for Chapter 98 exemption from MFN, §301 and §232 alike. Most importers under-utilise these provisions.
• Foreign Trade Zones (FTZ). FTZ admission can defer or eliminate duty on goods that are ultimately re-exported, used in manufacturing for export, or destroyed. FTZ math has shifted post-IEEPA in ways that warrant a fresh look.

Frequently asked questions