Supplement to April 2026 Action Brief

BOTTOM LINE

CAPE went live this morning.^[1] Phase 1 is operational, the path to refunds is real, and the government has not yet sought a system-wide stay – though its substantive appeal deadline has not passed. CAPE is an intake system, not a refund machine; the complexity has shifted from “will this happen” to “how cleanly will your claim hold up on review.”

CAPE is the CBP system for the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries

WHAT CHANGED

CAPE is live as of 8:00 AM April 20, 2026.^[2]

Phase 1 covers (i) unliquidated (unfinalized) entries and (ii) entries liquidated within the past 80-days (CBP’s operational cutoff, providing a 10-day buffer within the 90-day statutory voluntary reliquidation window under 19 U.S.C. § 1501) – roughly 63% of refund-eligible entries.^[3] The remaining ~37% (liquidated >80-days ago or in active protest) is deferred to later phases.^[4]

Timing.

CBP commits to refunds within 60-90 days after acceptance.^[5] For a clean Phase 1 claim filed today, expect cash no earlier than late June, with late July through August more likely.

Appeal status.

The Federal Circuit denied the government’s stay on March 2.^[6] The substantive appeal deadline is May 4, 2026. Phase 1 is operating under the current court-ordered framework, which remains subject to appeal.

Section 122 status.

The operative rate is 10%, imposed February 24, 2026 under presidential proclamation. The 15% figure circulating in some advisories reflects an announced intention that has not been formalized by proclamation as of this writing.^[7] For exposure modeling, assume 10% through July 24, 2026, with a 15% contingency scenario in case an updated proclamation is issued. A 24-state AG challenge is pending in Oregon v. Trump (CIT), with oral argument held April 10 and a ruling pending.^[8]

Scale.

~$166 billion total IEEPA collections across 330,000+ importers.^[9] ~$127 billion held by the 56,000+ importers already ACH-registered as of April 9, 2026.^[10]

WHAT IMPORTERS NEED TO UNDERSTAND

Refund-eligible ≠ gross tariff paid.

For goods that carried multiple layers – base MFN + Section 301 + Section 232 + IEEPA – only the IEEPA portion is refundable. Sections 301 and 232 are unaffected.^[11] Size claims off IEEPA-specific line items in ACE portal data at the entry level, not off total duty paid or blended rate estimates; actual rates varied from 10% (baseline reciprocal) to 25% (fentanyl-related on Canada/Mexico) to over 100% on some Chinese goods. For any claim above $150K, entry-level data is essential.

CAPE creates a permanent audit trail.

By design, CAPE consolidates entries, adjustments, and claim decisions inside ACE – reviewable by CBP before payment, after payment, or in future enforcement on unrelated entries.^[12]

Incorrect claims can trigger penalties under 19 U.S.C. § 1592, which is tiered by culpability – negligence, gross negligence, or fraud – with penalty ranges scaling accordingly.^[13] Pete Mento (Baker Tilly) estimates 15-20% of claims will face heightened review.^[14] This is a defensibility exercise, not a recovery exercise.

Pass-through exposure matters.

If tariff surcharges were added to customer invoices in 2025, the gross refund is not the keepable refund. Collecting full refunds on amounts passed through to customers can create consumer protection and class-action exposure under state and federal law, particularly in consumer goods and retail. Quantify and document before filing.^[15]

No CIT lawsuit needed for Phase 1 – for now.

CBP has confirmed Phase 1 filers don’t need to litigate, as long as the current framework holds.^[16] The government’s May 4 appeal could shift this. For liquidated-over-80-days or in-protest entries, a protective CIT filing may still add value, particularly for interest accrual.^[17]

Monetization market has repriced.

Observable pricing moved from 20-25¢ pre-ruling to approximately 40¢ in the immediate aftermath of the SCOTUS decision (per late-February reporting); pricing has continued to evolve since.^[18] Participant-reported pricing for large, clean, well-documented claims has moved materially higher, but specific quoted rates come from commercially interested parties and should not be treated as market benchmarks.^[19] Claims <$1M may see limited buyer interest; claims >$10M with clean documentation see competitive bidding. If monetizing, engage at least three counterparties.

Broker contingency fees warrant scrutiny.

Some brokerages are quoting 10-15% contingency fees for CAPE submission – effectively CSV upload work.^[20] Clarify in writing what audit, documentation, PSC/protest preservation, and post-submission defense is included. If the answer is “we upload the file,” the fee is not market-rate for advisory work.

IMMEDIATE PRIORITIES

1. Enroll in ACH if not already done. No paper-check fallback.^[21]
2. Aggregate entry data across all brokers. Separate IEEPA from Section 301/232 layers in the pull.
3. Validate before submission. Speed to file is less important than defensibility. Audit HTS classifications, IOR status, and flag entries with AD/CVD, Section 232/301, FTZ, drawback, or related-party valuation issues.
4. Quantify pass-through exposure before filing. Factor into net claim math.
5. Sort entries into three buckets: Phase 1-eligible (file once validated), Phase 1-ineligible but eventually covered (wait), in protest or requiring CIT action (counsel needed).

ONGOING CONSIDERATIONS

1. Audit credit agreements before monetizing. Lender consent is almost certainly required.
2. Address IEEPA claims explicitly in any active transaction – it will not be resolved by default.
3. Coordinate with tax advisors on transfer pricing, state tax, and federal income tax treatment. Refunds may be income in the year received or may require restatement of prior-year cost of goods sold depending on facts and accounting method, and may trigger intercompany true-ups for multinational structures – treatment is fact-specific and requires professional advice.^[22]
4. Revisit ASC 450 treatment with auditors as claims are filed and accepted.

WHAT REMAINS UNRESOLVED

1. Government appeal (May 4 deadline). If the government appeals, expect the timeline to slip and the framework to shift.
2. Finally liquidated entries (>80 days). Covered in principle by the March 27 CIT order, not yet operationally.^[23]
3. Section 122 litigation and rate formalization. Both pending.
4. Backend CBP enforcement protocols. Not yet published.

WHAT HAS NOT CHANGED

Only the IOR has a legal claim (confirm via CF-7501 Block 10). Credit agreements often restrict assignment of contingent assets. Claim ownership in transactions, splits, and bankruptcy must be addressed explicitly.

Harney Partners continues to track developments. If your situation involves a transaction, refinancing, liquidity event, or Phase 1 filing question, reach out before you act. This is exactly the work we do.

Sources

• [1] CBP CAPE FAQ page; CSMS #68315804, “Introduction – Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) for IEEPA Refunds, April 20, 2026 Deployment” (Apr 10, 2026).
• [2] CBP CAPE FAQ page; Thompson Hine / SmarTrade, “CBP Confirms April 20, 2026 Launch of Phase 1 of the IEEPA Tariff Refund Process.”
• [3] CBP filing of March 12, 2026 to the CIT; Cherry Bekaert, “IEEPA Tariff Refund Update: Phase I CAPE Functionality Set for April 20, 2026” (Apr 15, 2026), citing CBP filing of Mar 12, 2026.
• [4] Flexport estimate as reported in CBS News, “Trump administration launches tariff refund portal. Here’s what to know” (Apr 2026); see also TIME, “How U.S. Businesses Can Apply for Tariff Refunds” (Apr 17, 2026).
• [5] CBP CAPE FAQ page; Hogan Lovells, “US Customs and Border Protection issues FAQs on IEEPA Tariff refunds.”
• [6] V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, Nos. 2025-1812, -1813 (Fed. Cir. Mar 2, 2026) (en banc per curiam); Buchalter, “Federal Circuit Clears the Way for IEEPA Tariff Refund Litigation to Resume” (Mar 3, 2026).
• [7] Grant Thornton, “The Trump administration’s new tariff road map”; Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, “How Much Will Trump’s New 10% (or 15%) Tariffs Raise?” (Mar 4, 2026, updated Mar 5, 2026); Polsinelli alert on Post-SCOTUS Tariff Reset; RVIA, “President Trump Imposes 15% ‘Global Tariff’ Following SCOTUS Decision” (noting the proclamation formalizing the increase has not been issued).
• [8] State of Oregon, et al. v. Trump, et al., CIT (filed Mar 5, 2026) (Section 122 challenge; oral argument held Apr 10, 2026); California AG press release, “California Seeks Court Order Stopping Trump’s Illegal Tariffs” (Mar 2026).
• [9] CBP Declaration of Brandon Lord (Mar 6, 2026), as cited in Cherry Bekaert, “IEEPA Tariff Refund Update: Phase I CAPE Functionality Set for April 20, 2026” (Apr 15, 2026).
• [10] CBP filing of Apr 14, 2026, as cited in CBS News, “Trump administration launches tariff refund portal”; TIME, “How U.S. Businesses Can Apply for Tariff Refunds” (Apr 17, 2026).
• [11] Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. ___ (Feb 20, 2026) (holding limited to IEEPA authority); Stinson, “Supreme Court Invalidates IEEPA Tariffs: Recent Developments Accelerate Refund Process” (noting Section 232 and Section 301 duties are unaffected).
• [12] CBP CAPE FAQ page (describing CAPE as designed to consolidate refunds “rather than processing refunds on an entry-by-entry basis”); Baker Tilly, “How the CBP CAPE portal works and what importers should know” (Apr 2026) (analyzing the enforcement implications of the consolidated audit trail).
• [13] 19 U.S.C. § 1592 (civil penalties for fraud, gross negligence, and negligence in customs declarations); Morgan Lewis, “To File or Not to File: Contesting IEEPA Tariffs in Court” (Dec 5, 2025) (discussing § 1592 exposure framework).
• [14] Pete Mento (Director, Global Trade Advisory Services, Baker Tilly), as quoted in TIME, “How U.S. Businesses Can Apply for Tariff Refunds” (Apr 17, 2026); Supply Chain Dive, “CBP preps tariff refund portal for April 20 launch” (Apr 10, 2026); and Position: Global, “From Disruption to Direction: Dispatches from the 2026 JFK AirCargo Expo” (keynote recap).
• [15] Morgan Lewis, “To File or Not to File: Contesting IEEPA Tariffs in Court” (Dec 5, 2025) (discussing consumer protection and state law exposure when refunds are collected on tariff costs that were passed through to customers).
• [16] CBP CAPE FAQ page (“For Phase 1 which is limited to unliquidated entries or entries within the 90-day voluntary reliquidation period, you do not need to file a case with the CIT to receive an IEEPA refund due to you”).
• [17] Sullivan & Cromwell, “Court of International Trade Issues Order Regarding Tariff Refunds” (Mar 12, 2026) (government confirmed in writing it will pay interest on refunds); Hunton, “IEEPA Tariff Refunds: Next Steps for Importers” (Mar 13, 2026).
• [18] NPR / Marketplace, “The market for tariff refunds” (Feb 25, 2026) (citing Wes Harrell, Seaport Global trading group head; pricing as of late February 2026).
• [19] Reporting attributed to AES-affiliated factoring market participants via Chris Lehnes, “The Purchase Price of IEEPA Tariff Refund Claims” (Apr 2026); Orrick, “Preserving and Purchasing Tariff Refund Claims” (Sep 2025) (structural analysis of the claim-purchase market).
• [20] Pete Mento (Baker Tilly) as reported in The Loadstar, “Customs brokers eyeing 10% to 15% of US tariff refunds” (Apr 2026).
• [21] Federal Register Document 2025-24171 (CBP’s discontinuation of paper refund checks, effective Feb 6, 2026).
• [22] I.R.C. § 111; Tucker Act interest; general gain contingency principle; Cherry Bekaert, “IEEPA Tariff Refund Update” (Apr 15, 2026) (flagging tax, transfer pricing, and financial statement modeling as areas requiring professional advice).
• [23] Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, CIT (Mar 27, 2026) (amended order); Foley & Lardner, “What Every Multinational Should Know About the Court of International Trade’s Order to Refund all IEEPA Tariffs.”