US court orders refunds on Trump's IEEPA tariffs as CBP recalculates duties

IEEPA

US court orders refunds on Trump's IEEPA tariffs, forcing CBP to recalculate duties. The ruling follows a Supreme Court decision that found the emergency tariffs unlawful. As a result, US court orders refunds on Trump's IEEPA tariffs with broad relief for importers.

Refund order widens relief beyond lawsuit filers

The judge directed refunds for unliquidated entries and for liquidations not yet final. Therefore, CBP must adjust final duties across a wide set of shipments. Thousands of companies already filed claims after paying large emergency duties. The tariffs collected about $175bn during their nearly year-long run.

Interest costs and liquidity risks move to the forefront

Interest payments now raise the stakes for the Treasury and for importers. The administration conceded it must pay interest on required refunds. Meanwhile, analysts warn monthly interest could reach $700mn if delays persist. US court orders refunds on Trump's IEEPA tariffs, and that shift tightens pressure to execute quickly.

Delay risk has created a secondary market for refund rights. Some firms may offer immediate cash at steep discounts. However, faster processing could limit pressure on smaller importers. For supply chains, refunds can restore working capital for metals, components, and inventory rebuilds.

The Metalnomist Commentary

This decision resets landed-cost math for many importers in one stroke. However, refund timing will drive who benefits most from the ruling. Companies that map entries and documentation fastest will capture the cash first.

Trump 10pc tariffs plan raises fresh uncertainty for global trade

Trump tariffs

Trump 10pc tariffs are emerging as a backup weapon in Washington’s trade arsenal as legal scrutiny intensifies. Trump 10pc tariffs would act as a temporary bridge if the Supreme Court strikes down his 2025 emergency duties, reshaping how the White House uses trade law. For companies exposed to cross-border supply chains, Trump 10pc tariffs add another layer of risk on top of already complex tariff regimes.

Legal uncertainty around Trump 10pc tariffs and emergency powers

The administration is preparing a fallback plan that would immediately impose a temporary 10pc duty on imports if the Supreme Court overturns current emergency tariffs. Officials signal that Trump 10pc tariffs would likely rely on Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which allows up to 15pc tariffs for 150 days to address balance-of-payments issues. However, any extension beyond that window would require explicit congressional approval, injecting political risk into what has so far been a unilateral tariff strategy.

At the same time, the White House is mapping a second phase based on well-tested authorities such as Section 232 and Section 301. These tools target specific products or countries on national security or unfair trade grounds but require investigations, public consultations and time. As a result, Trump 10pc tariffs would function as a legal stopgap while more targeted measures are built, rather than a permanent framework. The pending Supreme Court decision on the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) will determine how far presidents can stretch emergency powers into broad-based tariff policy.

The court’s ruling will directly impact emergency tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China justified by fentanyl-related “economic emergencies,” along with broader duties of 10pc and higher on nearly all US trading partners. It will also affect emergency measures aimed at Brazil and India, where tariffs were tied to alleged speech suppression and Russian crude imports. But tariffs on steel, aluminium, cars and auto parts imposed under traditional authorities would remain intact, preserving some of the most consequential industry-specific barriers.

Revenue, refunds and the corporate “tariff overhang”

A critical question troubling even conservative justices is whether sweeping tariffs function as taxes that only Congress may levy. The US Treasury has collected nearly $260bn in customs duties during the first 11 months of Trump’s second term, creating a massive “tariff overhang.” Hundreds of companies have already filed lawsuits seeking refunds, turning the Supreme Court decision into a potential trigger for complex, multi-year repayment disputes.

The administration argues that tariffs are policy instruments, not taxes, and warns that broad refunds would be administratively chaotic and fiscally painful. Trump himself has said repaying duties “would be a complete mess,” signalling that even if the court limits IEEPA, the White House will resist rapid, sweeping restitution. For global manufacturers, traders and end-users, this means that current and historic tariff exposure may remain a financial and legal uncertainty for years.

The Metalnomist Commentary

For metals and industrial supply chains, the Trump 10pc tariffs debate is about far more than headline percentages. It is redefining the legal boundaries of presidential trade power, shaping how future administrations can weaponise tariffs in strategic sectors from steel and aluminium to critical minerals. Boardrooms should treat this not as a one-off legal drama, but as a structural shift toward more politicised, less predictable trade governance.

Trump Accuses China of Violating Preliminary Trade Deal

U.S, China

Trump Accuses China of Violating Preliminary Trade Deal

US President Donald Trump has accused China of breaching a preliminary trade agreement reached in Geneva earlier this month. During a White House press briefing, Trump claimed that Beijing "violated a big part of the agreement," though he provided no specifics. US trade officials and aides also offered no documentation or clarification, raising uncertainty over the deal’s durability.

The Geneva pact aimed to temporarily pause 125–145% tariffs, allowing limited breathing room for both sides until 10 August. However, exemptions remain narrow. For instance, China’s tariffs on US crude oil and LNG are still too high to restore meaningful trade flows. On the other hand, US propane exports could rebound due to lower effective tariffs and exemptions for key petrochemical feedstocks.

New Tariff Measures and Export Restrictions Stir Controversy

The trade dispute has evolved beyond traditional tariffs. The US Department of Commerce recently required NGL exporters to apply for export licenses for ethane and butane bound for China. The department cited concerns over dual-use military applications. Meanwhile, the Trump administration announced new fees of $50/net ton on Chinese ship operators and $18/net ton on Chinese-built ships, effective this fall.

Adding further strain, China lifted some tech export restrictions, particularly for cloud services, while maintaining limits on rare earth exports to the US. These minerals are crucial for defense and electronics, making the move highly strategic.

Legal Challenges Undermine Tariff Legitimacy

A major legal complication emerged when the US Court of International Trade ruled that Trump’s tariffs under the 1978 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were unlawful. The court concluded the law does not grant unlimited presidential authority over tariffs. Although a federal appeals court has stayed the ruling, the incident casts doubt on Trump’s long-term tariff strategy.

Trump criticized the idea of seeking Congressional approval for tariffs, stating it would involve "hundreds of people" and months of delay. Despite legal headwinds, Trump continues to favor unilateral action and hinted at resolving disputes directly with President Xi Jinping in the near future.

The Metalnomist Commentary

Trump’s renewed hardline stance on China—just weeks after a ceasefire—highlights the fragile nature of trade diplomacy. While tariffs offer political leverage, legal and structural challenges are mounting. Industrial stakeholders must prepare for an environment where regulatory unpredictability, rather than open markets, defines global trade norms.

FedEx Tariff Refunds Lawsuit Raises New Uncertainty for US Importers

FedEx

FedEx tariff refunds are becoming a major test case for companies seeking to recover duties paid under cancelled US import tariffs. The global shipping group has filed a lawsuit against the US administration after the Supreme Court struck down most of the duties imposed last year under emergency powers.

The case matters beyond FedEx. As an importer of record for goods entering the United States, FedEx sits directly inside the customs system used by manufacturers, retailers, refiners, traders, and industrial buyers. Its lawsuit could influence how other companies pursue refunds and how regulators manage a potentially complex repayment process.

FedEx tariff refunds could also affect trade compliance strategy across commodity and manufacturing supply chains. Many companies paid duties on imported inputs, finished goods, energy products, and industrial materials. If refunds become available, importers will need documentation, customs records, and legal clarity to recover what they paid.

Importers Face a Complicated Refund Process

The refund process is likely to be difficult because the total value of disputed duties is extremely large. The US had collected $133bn in tariffs under IEEPA by December, and economists estimate the amount may have since risen to about $175bn. That creates a major administrative challenge for customs authorities and eligible importers.

FedEx said it suffered injury from the cancelled tariffs and is seeking a full refund with interest. However, the company has not disclosed a specific monetary claim. It has also warned that no formal refund process has yet been established by regulators or the courts.

Hundreds of companies have already filed tariff refund lawsuits, including refiners Valero and Marathon Petroleum. This shows that the issue is not limited to logistics companies. It reaches energy, manufacturing, retail, metals, chemicals, and other import-heavy sectors that absorbed tariff costs during the disputed period.

New Tariffs Keep Pressure on Supply Chains

The legal fight over FedEx tariff refunds is unfolding as new US import duties take effect under a different trade authority. A new 10pc tariff on all US imports has started, while the administration has signalled a potential increase to 15pc. This means companies may be pursuing refunds for one tariff regime while preparing for cost increases under another.

For industrial buyers, that creates planning uncertainty. Tariffs affect landed costs, sourcing decisions, inventory strategy, and contract pricing. Companies importing metals, machinery, energy products, electronic components, and intermediate goods may need to reassess supplier exposure and tariff recovery options at the same time.

The dispute also highlights the growing legal risk around trade policy. Tariffs can be imposed quickly, but refunding them after a court ruling can take years. That gap leaves importers exposed to cash-flow pressure, accounting complexity, and uncertainty over whether duties can be recovered.

The Metalnomist Commentary

FedEx tariff refunds could become a benchmark for how importers recover costs from overturned trade measures. The bigger issue is that US tariff policy is now creating legal uncertainty as well as supply-chain cost pressure.

Canada Removes Tariffs on USMCA-Covered Goods

USMCA

Canada removes tariffs on USMCA-covered goods effective 1 September, prime minister Mark Carney said. Canada removes tariffs on USMCA-covered goods to mirror the US stance on IEEPA tariffs. Therefore, Canada removes tariffs on USMCA-covered goods while keeping separate metal and auto duties.

What changes now — and what stays

Canada lifts retaliatory tariffs on goods covered by USMCA. The move aligns with Washington’s exemption for Canadian exports. However, Canada maintains a 25% tariff on US steel, aluminum, and automobiles. The US still levies 50% on Canadian steel and aluminum. Average US tariffs on Canadian goods are 5.6%. That compares with nearly 16% globally, Ottawa notes. Trump welcomed Ottawa’s decision and signaled further talks. Both sides will intensify discussions on strategic sectors.

Metals, autos, and the 2026 review

For metals, headline tariffs remain the real constraint. Therefore, steel and aluminum flows still face elevated costs. Auto supply chains gain clarity from the USMCA alignment. However, ring-fenced duties still cloud pricing and sourcing. A joint USMCA review begins in spring 2026. The process could last 6–18 months, shaping future market access. Meanwhile, Ottawa will launch “nation-building projects” to diversify markets. That aims to reduce exposure to US policy shifts.

The Metalnomist Commentary

Policy alignment lowers headline risk but leaves key frictions in metals. Watch the 2026 review for origin rules, CBAM interfaces, and any metal-specific carve-outs that could reset costs.