A ruling against President Donald Trump’s tariffs in the U.S. Supreme Court could result in the United States owing about $165 billion in customs duties collected this fiscal year alone. That is according to a new report by Bloomberg, which warns that should the high court uphold two lower‑court decisions that found the administration lacked authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the country‑based levies, meaning that importers of wooden furniture, solid lumber, cross‑laminated timber and other goods could be entitled to refunds for much of the year‑to‑date tariff haul.
The year‑over‑year jump in customs revenue — about $95 billion — is largely attributable to tariffs imposed in August on imports from dozens of economies, and trade specialists say the scale and mechanics of repaying those duties would create a major logistical and legal headache.
Wood Central understands the refunds are not automatic. U.S. Customs and Border Protection approves adjustments when importers overpay or when rules change, and the Treasury Department issues payments. Claimants must select the correct remedy and meet strict filing deadlines to preserve their rights. “Customs isn’t just going to hand importers a bunch of money,” said Lynlee Brown, global trade partner at EY. And while most refunds have historically been paid by paper check, and each customs entry typically generates its own claim, this dynamic could produce an avalanche of individual reimbursements.
“It’s possible that we’ll see millions and millions of paper checks being mailed out because each shipment, each customs entry, will have its own,” said Tom Gould, a Seattle‑based customs consultant. The Treasury ordered a phaseout of check payments this year, but CBP has only begun a multi-stage transition and is unlikely to be ready to execute mass electronic repayments if a court decision is made soon.
Practical and contractual frictions will further complicate the recovery process. For shipments handled by commercial couriers, the importer of record is often the parcel handler rather than the goods’ owner, which means refunds could be paid to FedEx, UPS or similar firms unless separate arrangements are in place. Customs issues refunds in U.S. dollars to approved domestic banks, so foreign firms without U.S. accounts would rely on international mail or U.S.‑based brokers to receive funds, exposing repayments to postal delays and theft. Gould noted a recent spate of stolen refund checks being diverted in the mail and sold on the dark web before being cashed.
Smaller businesses say the uncertainty has already altered sourcing decisions. “I have zero faith we’d ever get anything. Just zero,” said Harley Sitner, owner of Peace Vans, a camper‑van repair and restoration shop in Seattle. Sitner described surprise tariff notices ranging from $221 to $17,000, sometimes arriving months after goods were received, and said the unpredictability has forced him to halt most overseas purchases.
There are precedents for faster, more automated relief. When Congress retroactively renewed programs such as the Generalised System of Preferences, Customs built systems to identify eligible entries and expedite refunds. CBP could mine Automated Commercial Environment data to flag payments made under the contested IEEPA citations and process many claims without individual filings.
Still, experts warn the administration could require claimants to file protests or post‑summary corrections and to produce proof of every payment and associated importer data, effectively forcing many importers into separate legal actions. Some customs brokers report interest from Wall Street investors in purchasing refund claims, a market solution that would allow importers to recover at least a portion of the sums owed.
As a result, Brown has urged all importers to preserve all records from CBP’s Automated Commercial Environment and to log each entry date and filing deadline to protect refund rights. The political stakes are high: Trump has touted tariff revenue as a national boon and claimed the levies have made the country “very rich again,” while allies have proposed using the funds for debt reduction, farmer aid, or rebate checks for Americans. That posture suggests the administration may be reluctant to relinquish the revenue and could seek to reimpose duties under other legal authorities if the court strikes down the current program.
