Section 122 Tariff Refund Status: What Importers Need to Know Right Now

This article is general information, not legal advice. Whether and how to pursue a Section 122 refund depends on your specific entries. Consult a qualified attorney about your situation.

In short: The Section 122 tariff has expired, but the question of whether importers get their money back has not been decided. A court found the tariff unlawful, but only three companies are being paid so far, an appeal is still pending, and there is no CBP protest process that reaches these duties. A Court of International Trade filing is currently the only way to preserve a claim.

Key takeaways

• Section 122 tariffs ran February 24 through July 24, 2026, then expired on their own 150-day statutory clock.
• The Court of International Trade separately ruled the tariff unlawful on May 7, 2026, but limited relief to the three companies that sued. An appeal is still pending with no ruling.
• CBP built an automated refund portal for IEEPA duties. No such portal, and no CBP protest mechanism, exists for Section 122 duties. Some outside guidance recommends filing a protest anyway. That advice is not correct for these entries.
• The same plaintiff that won the Section 122 case, Burlap and Barrel, is now suing again over the tariffs that replaced it.
• The only way to preserve a Section 122 refund claim right now is to file at the Court of International Trade.

If your company paid the Section 122 tariff at any point between late February and late July of 2026, the tariff itself is gone, but your money is not automatically coming back. This article covers exactly where things stand today and what determines whether you get paid.

What happened to the Section 122 tariff

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 let the President impose a temporary import surcharge to address a balance of payments problem. The administration invoked it on February 20, 2026, the same day the Supreme Court struck down the IEEPA tariffs, and imposed a 10 percent surcharge on most imports starting February 24. The statute caps that authority at 150 days without Congress extending it, and Congress did not extend it. The tariff expired at the end of that window, on July 24, 2026.

That is not the whole story, though. Before it expired, a court had already ruled on whether the tariff was lawful in the first place.

The court ruling, and who it actually covers

On May 7, 2026, the Court of International Trade ruled 2 to 1 that the administration's Section 122 tariff did not meet the statute's requirements. The court held that "balance of payments deficit," the specific term the statute uses, refers to a narrower, technical measure than the general trade deficit the administration cited to justify the surcharge.

That ruling did not produce a refund for everyone who paid the tariff. The case was brought jointly by a coalition of states and by private importers. Only three parties ended up with relief: Burlap and Barrel, a spice importer, Basic Fun, a toy company, and the State of Washington, the only state plaintiff whose claim was not dismissed for lack of standing. Every other importer kept paying the 10 percent surcharge for the rest of the 150-day period.

The government appealed. On June 11, 2026, the Federal Circuit stayed the lower court's ruling, finding the government likely to succeed on appeal. That stay is still in place. No further ruling has been issued. The underlying question of whether Section 122 duties were lawfully collected remains open today, five months after the tariff itself expired.

The same plaintiff is suing again

Section 122 expired into a replacement. The same day it ended, July 24, 2026, the administration imposed new tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act, this time justified by a forced labor finding against roughly 60 trading partners. Burlap and Barrel, the company that won the Section 122 case, is now a plaintiff again, this time alongside Collective Horology, in a new suit challenging the Section 301 tariffs at the Court of International Trade. At least one other case, brought by 25 states, is proceeding alongside it, with a hearing scheduled for September 30, 2026.

We cover the mechanics of the Section 301 tariffs, who they cover, and what the current litigation argues in a companion article: Section 301 "Forced Labor" Tariffs: What Replaced Section 122 and What Comes Next.

The pattern across all three tariff regimes, IEEPA, Section 122, and now Section 301, has been consistent. The importers with their own case are the importers with a real claim. The importers waiting on someone else's lawsuit are not.

What to do this week

1. Pull your ACE records for every entry between February 24 and July 24, 2026, and confirm which ones carried the 10 percent Section 122 surcharge.
2. Do not rely on a CBP protest to preserve a Section 122 claim. It is not the applicable mechanism for these duties.
3. Speak with an attorney about filing your own Court of International Trade claim before deciding to wait on the pending appeal.
4. If you are also paying the new Section 301 tariffs, review your exposure there separately, since that litigation is at an earlier stage.

To have your Section 122 exposure reviewed, start here and speak with an attorney.

Frequently asked questions

Is the Section 122 tariff still in effect?

No. It expired on July 24, 2026, on its statutory 150-day limit, and was replaced the same day by new Section 301 tariffs.

Can I get a refund on the Section 122 tariff I already paid?

Only importers who filed their own Court of International Trade case have been paid so far. The underlying legal question is still on appeal, and there is no administrative refund process for these duties.

Should I file a CBP protest to preserve my Section 122 claim?

No. There is no established protest mechanism that reaches Section 122 duties. A Court of International Trade filing is currently the only route that has produced results.

What is the Federal Circuit appeal, and when will it be decided?

The government appealed the May 2026 ruling that found Section 122 unlawful. The Federal Circuit stayed that ruling in June 2026 pending its own decision, and no ruling has been issued since.