Section 122 Tariff Refund Status: August 2026 Update

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 and ordered refunds for the three plaintiffs that sued, but an appeals court put that order on hold within days, and the appeal is still pending. Legal opinion is split on whether a CBP protest reaches these duties. A Court of International Trade filing is the one path that has won a refund order so far.

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 exists for Section 122 duties. Most major law firms recommend filing a CBP protest as a low-cost way to preserve the option, though at least one major firm argues these duties may not be protestable at all.
• The same plaintiff that won the Section 122 case, Burlap and Barrel, is now suing again over the tariffs that replaced it.
• A Court of International Trade filing is the one path that has produced a court-ordered refund so far, though that order is on hold during the appeal.

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 won 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, and the Federal Circuit put the lower court's ruling on hold almost immediately, first through a temporary administrative stay on May 12, 2026, then through a full stay on June 11, 2026, after finding the government likely to succeed on appeal. That stay is still in place, which means even the three winning plaintiffs' court-ordered refunds are on hold. No further ruling has been issued. The underlying question of whether Section 122 duties were lawfully collected remains open today, a month after the tariff itself expired.

What law firms are telling clients to do

Since the May 7 ruling, most major trade law firms have told clients that a CBP protest belongs in their preservation toolkit, though how urgently varies. Norton Rose Fulbright's guidance is the most direct, recommending that importers file "protests under 19 U.S.C. Section 1514 for any entries that have already liquidated, subject to the applicable 180-day protest deadline." Skadden lists "filing or amending protests for liquidated entries" among the steps it tells businesses to evaluate, and Snell & Wilmer advises importers to "evaluate whether to file suit at the CIT, submit protests to CBP, or pursue other claim-preservation strategies," noting that CBP's automated refund portal, CAPE, "currently applies only to IEEPA tariffs." Kelley Drye takes a more measured tone, noting the 180-day protest deadline gives importers time to watch how the appeal unfolds before deciding whether a protest is worth filing at all.

Not every firm agrees a protest actually reaches these duties. Davis Wright Tremaine takes the opposite position, arguing that because Section 122 tariffs are imposed directly by the President rather than assessed at CBP's discretion, "where CBP is not the decisionmaker, a liquidation is non-protestable." On that reading, the only route to the refund order the three named plaintiffs already won is a new Court of International Trade filing under 28 U.S.C. Section 1581(i). Two other litigation-focused firms, Dorsey and Gibson Dunn, discuss CIT filing exclusively in their published guidance and do not mention a protest option at all.

What every firm agrees on is narrower but more useful. There is no CAPE-style administrative refund portal for Section 122 duties, and the only mechanism that has actually produced a court-ordered refund so far is a Court of International Trade lawsuit, and even that order is paused while the appeal plays out. Whether a protest also works is a live legal question no court has decided. A CIT filing is not.

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. If any entries are approaching the 180-day liquidation deadline, most firms recommend filing a CBP protest as a low-cost hedge, even though whether it actually reaches these duties is legally unsettled. Do not treat a protest as a substitute for evaluating a CIT filing.
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?

Not yet. The three plaintiffs that filed their own Court of International Trade case won a refund order, but even that order is on hold while the government's appeal is pending, and there is no administrative refund process for these duties.

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

Most major law firms recommend it as one part of a broader strategy, since the 180-day protest window costs little to use and preserves the option. At least one major firm disputes that a presidentially-imposed duty like this one can be protested at all. Either way, a Court of International Trade filing is the one path that has produced a refund order so far, though that order is on hold during the appeal.

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.