FTZ’ine May 2026
April 29, 2026
Here Comes The Judge
And he does not sound happy.
The Commissioner of Customs has been ordered to appear before a judge next week to explain why it is taking so long for the government to return the $165B of IEEPA duties paid by importers, including foreign-trade zones.
The Trump Administration responded by filing an appeal of the order requiring the refunds on entries where liquidation is already considered final. On top of that ACE account access is becoming a bottleneck for many would-be CAPE users that find themselves locked out of the refund process entirely. These developments are slowing the very process the judge wants to accelerate, which could mean a confrontation in court next week.
May marked the first visit of a U.S. President to China in some 10 years. For traders, the outcome of those discussions will hopefully lead to some additional export activity, as well as lower tariffs on $30B worth of Chinese imports per year.
Section 122 may go the way of IEEPA after a court ruling that those tariffs, like the ones they replaced, are beyond Presidential authority. Legal or not, Section 122 tariffs are slated to be replaced by new ones under Section 301 in July. It’s shaping up to be an interesting summer.
Top Story - White House Appeal Complicates FTZ Refund Outlook
The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) has taken the unusual step of ordering U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Rodney S. Scott to personally appear before the Court on June 9th in New York City to explain the agency's progress in issuing $165B in refunds of IEEPA tariffs.
Judge Richard K. Eaton of the CIT has been tasked with overseeing the refund process after that responsibility was passed back to CIT by the Supreme Court. He subsequently ordered CBP to refund all affected duties, but the hearing reflects growing concern that the government has not yet implemented a process capable of returning everything it collected.
The Trump Administration has not confirmed if Commissioner Scott will actually appear, and responded by appealing the requirement to refund duties attached to entries that have completed final liquidation.
For Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) operators, importers, and trade compliance professionals, the appeal introduces significant uncertainty regarding refund eligibility, timing, and procedural requirements.
Although CBP established the CAPE refund mechanism and began accepting claims electronically earlier this year, the system currently addresses only a portion of the tariffs collected under IEEPA authority.
CBP filings indicate that approximately $127 billion may be eligible for processing through administrative procedures now in place, leaving billions of dollars in potential refunds unresolved.
Importers with entries that remain open or have not reached final liquidation continue to have a straight path to refunds, and CBP has indicated these claims may continue to be processed through the CAPE system.
However, the government has taken the position that it lacks authority to issue refunds on entries after final liquidation absent a court order, and has signaled its intent to challenge any broad ruling requiring repayment.
This position could force additional importers into litigation simply to recover duties that courts have already determined were unlawfully collected.
One of the most important unresolved questions involves the meaning of "finally liquidated" entries.
The government has acknowledged that entries liquidated within the last 80 days may still be eligible for administrative adjustment and refund.
However, uncertainty remains regarding entries subject to timely protests and other post-entry actions, and entries past the 80-day limit.
The Administration's appeal ensures that the legal battle over IEEPA tariff refunds is not yet over.
The FTZ’ine will be watching to see if the CIT hearing provides greater clarity regarding Customs' refund implementation plans.
CAPE Refunds Are Here, And ACE Account Access Is Key
Just after the Memorial Day holiday, U.S. Customs submitted a report of the status of IEEPA tariff refunds through the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) system in ACE.
Brandon Lord, Executive Director of the Trade Programs Directorate in the Office of Trade reported that as of May 22nd, 15,852,806 entries with IEEPA duties that passed the entry-specific validations and were accepted for refund by CAPE. The value of the refunds due on those entries is estimated to be about $85B.
He further reported that as of that date, 8,515,477 of the accepted entries have subsequently been liquidated and/or reliquidated without IEEPA duties, resulting in $20.6B in refunds, including interest.
This implies that CAPE has only processed slightly more than 50% of the amount that needs to be refunded. One month into the CAPE program, the Court of International Trade does not appear to be impressed by this progress.
ACE Portal account access is playing a role in holding down that number.
CBP reported that 4,185 refunds have not been returned because ACH banking information has not been entered into the ACE Portal. Several users have identified reasons why they have been denied access to an ACE Portal account that is a prerequisite of filing for and receiving an IEEPA refund:
• Trade Account Owners (TAO) that left the company without establishing proxies or other users
• Missing or outdated 5106 information is preventing setup of a new ACE Portal Account
• Legacy ACE Portal Account wasn’t transitioned to the Modernized ACE Portal
Be sure your ACE Portal account is set up properly to maintain access when changes to the CAPE system are released!
Need help filing for refunds of your IEEPA duties paid? Contact us at info@iscm.co.
Court Challenges Section 122 Tariff Legality
Last month the U.S. Court of International Trade delivered another significant setback to the Trump Administration's tariff strategy. In a closely watched decision, a divided three-judge panel ruled that the Administration exceeded its legal authority when it imposed a temporary 10% tariff on most imports under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
For importers, Foreign-Trade Zone operators, customs professionals, and supply chain executives, the decision highlights a growing reality: tariff policy is not only being determined through administration negotiations and executive action, but now also through the courts.
The Section 122 tariffs were implemented after the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the Administration's earlier global tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Administration then turned to a little-used provision of the Trade Act of 1974 that permits temporary tariffs of up to 15 percent for a maximum of 150 days in response to serious balance-of-payments issues.
The Court of International Trade concluded that the Administration failed to satisfy the statutory conditions necessary to invoke that authority. In reaching its decision, the majority emphasized Congress's intent to place meaningful limits on presidential discretion in trade matters and found that the circumstances cited by the Administration did not align with the economic conditions contemplated when Section 122 was enacted.
While the ruling currently applies only to the importing plaintiffs involved in the litigation, the broader implications extend well beyond those parties. Some trade attorneys expect additional importers to pursue similar claims and seek refunds for tariffs already paid under the Section 122 program., but the split decision (the CIT’s IEEPA decision had been unanimous) may indicate that higher level Courts may not reach the same conclusion as CIT did in this case.
The possibility of another large-scale refund effort is particularly significant given that Customs is already managing a complex process of refunding approximately $165 billion in IEEPA duties. If the Section 122 ruling ultimately survives appeal, the government could face another substantial wave of refund claims, adding further stress to an already strained administrative process.
For the Foreign-Trade Zone community, the decision reinforces the importance of maintaining accurate admission records, inventory controls, and duty payment documentation. As courts continue to revisit the legality of various tariff programs, companies with strong compliance and recordkeeping practices will be positioned to participate in any future refund opportunities.
The decision also creates planning challenges for businesses that have been attempting to forecast landed costs. Many companies have spent the past two years adapting supply chains in response to rapidly changing tariff policies. With courts now scrutinizing the legal basis for those policies, long-term sourcing decisions become even more difficult.
At the same time, the Administration is already pursuing alternative trade actions. Investigations currently underway under Section 301 of the Trade Act will provide the basis for future tariffs related to global overcapacity, forced labor concerns, and other trade practices. Those investigations are expected to result in additional Section 301 tariff announcements in just a few weeks.
Board of Trade May Offer Some Tariff Relief On China Goods
U.S. President Donald Trump traveled to Beijing for a historic state visit beginning May 13th, marking the first time a president had visited China in nearly a decade. New agreements announced during the President's visit indicate that both governments are looking for opportunities, however small, to stabilize the bilateral trading relationship.
Among the most notable outcomes was China's reported commitment to purchase 200 Boeing aircraft, the largest Chinese order of U.S.-manufactured airplanes in nearly a decade. Chinese authorities also approved the resumption of U.S. beef exports from hundreds of American processing facilities and are expected to significantly expand purchases of U.S. agricultural products, including soybeans and other commodities.
Perhaps more significant from a long-term trade perspective was the announcement that the United States and China will establish a new "Board of Trade" to oversee tariff reductions affecting approximately $30 billion in Chinese imports.
Few details have been released regarding the structure or authority of the ‘Board’.
For importers, exporters, and Foreign-Trade Zone operators, the development may signal a gradual shift away from broad-based tariff measures and toward sector-specific trade management. But significant differences between the countries remain.
The Administration continues to pursue new tariff authorities though Section 301 investigations now underway that focus on global overcapacity and forced labor concerns. Those new tariffs are expected to produce additional tariff actions later this year, but China warned against any broad-based actions that raised tariffs on Chinese goods above current levels.
Dan Sullivan Likely To Win Alaskan Senate Primary
How do we know that?
Because in Alaskan primaries, four 4 winners are chosen and two candidates are named Dan Sullivan.
The Alaska primary for the 2026 U.S. Senate race will be held on August 18, 2026. This is a top‑four, nonpartisan primary, so all candidates from all parties appear on the same ballot, and the top four advance to the general election.
Political observers often describe Alaska politics as unique, but the 2026 U.S. Senate race may be setting a new standard. Senator Dan Sullivan's re-election campaign has drawn national attention following the entry of another candidate named Dan Sullivan, creating the potential for voter confusion in one of the country's most closely watched Senate contests.
Under Alaska's election system, all candidates compete in a single nonpartisan primary, with the top four finishers advancing to the general election regardless of party affiliation. This year's race became more unusual when Dan J. Sullivan, a former educator from Petersburg, entered the contest against incumbent Senator Dan S. Sullivan.
While the two are not believed to be related, their shared name has sparked debate among political strategists about whether ballot confusion could influence the outcome of the race.
Alaska's political landscape has also become increasingly competitive. While Republicans have traditionally held the state's Senate seats, Alaska's unique electorate and ranked-choice voting system have produced outcomes that often differ from national political trends. Independent and unaffiliated voters represent a significant portion of the electorate, and candidates frequently build coalitions that cross traditional party lines.
FTZ Staff Activity
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-209-2026) in FTZ 138H on behalf of TPE Acquisitions LLC dba Ryder E-Commerce Whiplash, Etna, OH on April 14, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-210-2026) in FTZ 33D on behalf of Mitsubishi Electric Power Products Inc., New Galilee, PA on April 14, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-211-2026) in FTZ 126 on behalf of Panasonic Energy Corporation of North America, Reno, NV on April 14, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-212-2026) in FTZ 49R on behalf of Glendale Warehouse and Distribution Corp, Edison, NJ on April 14, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-213-2026) in FTZ 213 on behalf of President Electronics USA Inc., Naples, FL on April 14, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a TSF Subzone subject to the activation limits of the Grantee (S-214-2026) in FTZ 200 on behalf of Shiseido America Incorporated, East Windsor/Cranbury, NJ on April 15, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-215-2026) in FTZ 99N on behalf of STA Pharmaceutical USA Co., Middletown, DE on April 15, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-216-2026) in FTZ 202 on behalf of PolyPeptide Laboratories Inc., Torrance, CA on April 16, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-217-2026) in FTZ 218C on behalf of OCULUS Surgical Inc., Port St. Lucie, FL on April 16, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-218-2026) in FTZ 18W on behalf of Rose Electronics Distribution Company LLC dba Rose Batteries, San Jose, CA on April 16, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-219-2026) in FTZ 70 on behalf of Metro International Trade Services LLC, Detroit, MI on April 17, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-220-2026) in FTZ 74 on behalf of Tradepoint Terminfals LLC, Baltimore, MD on April 17, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-221-2026) in FTZ 151 on behalf of Callies Performance Products Inc., Fostoria, OH on April 20, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-222-2026) in FTZ 142 on behalf of GenVault LLC, Deptford, NJ on April 20, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-223-2026) in FTZ 8 on behalf of Heidtman Steel Products, Inc., Toledo, OH on April 21, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-224-2026) in FTZ 35 on behalf of ifm Power, Malvern, PA on April 22, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-225-2026) in FTZ 50 on behalf of Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc., Ontario, CA on April 22, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-226-2026) in FTZ 106 on behalf of Wilspec Technologies Inc., Oklahoma City, OK on April 22, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-227-2026) in FTZ 50 on behalf of Catalina Cylinders Inc., Garden Grove, CA on April 22, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Traditional Minor Boundary Modification (S-228-2026) in FTZ 115 on behalf of Foreign Trade Zones of Southeast Texas Inc., Port Arthur, TX on April 22, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-229-2026) in FTZ 53 on behalf of FCA LLC dba Viking Packing Specialist, Catoosa, OK on April 22, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a TSF Subzone subject to the activation limits of the Grantee (S-230-2026) in FTZ 255 on behalf of Fisher BioServices on April 22, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-231-2026) in FTZ 170 on behalf of Communications Test Design Inc., Jeffersonville, IN on April 22, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-232-2026) in FTZ 35 on behalf of ifm Efector, Downington, PA on April 23, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Termination (S-233-2026) in FTZ 32 on behalf of Greater Miami Foreign-Trade Zone Inc., Miami, FL on April 27, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-234-2026) in FTZ 99I on behalf of Bloom Energy Corporation, Newark, DE on April 27, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-235-2026) in FTZ 72 on behalf of Catalent Indiana LLC, Bloomington, IN on April 28, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-236-2026) in FTZ 45 on behalf of JAE Oregon Inc., Tualatin, OR on April 30, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-237-2026) in FTZ 177F on behalf of TaylorMade Golf Company, Evansville, IN on April 29, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-238-2026) in FTZ 22AL on behalf of Progressive Components International Corporation, Wauconda, IL on April 29, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-239-2026) in FTZ 38 on behalf of California Manufacturing & Engineering Company Inc., Duncan, SC on April 30, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-240-2026) in FTZ 272H on behalf of Yaraghi LLC, Easton, PA on May 1, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-241-2026) in FTZ 82L on behalf of Nudralix, Mobile, AL on May 4, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-242-2026) in FTZ 244 on behalf of Yaraghi LLC, Riverside, CA on May 5, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-243-2026) in FTZ 129G on behalf of Phillips 66 Company, Ferndale, WA on May 5, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-244-2026) in FTZ 230J on behalf of Gildan Activewear (Eden) Inc., Rural Hall, NC on May 5, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-245-2026) in FTZ 93N on behalf of Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals Industries LP, CLayton, NC on May 6, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-246-2026) in FTZ 48 on behalf of 1 Commerce Inc., Clifton, NJ on May 6, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-247-2026) in FTZ 83I on behalf of BASF Mobile Emissions Catalysts LLC, Huntsville, AL on May 6, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Minor Boundary Modification (S-248-2026) in FTZ 78Q on behalf of Petainer Manufacturing USA Inc., Columbia, TN on May 6, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Traditional Minor Boundary Modification (S-249-2026) in FTZ 116F on behalf of Port Aruthur LNG, LLC on May 7, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Traditional Minor Boundary Modification (S-250-2026) in FTZ 196D on behalf of Celestica LLC on May 7, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Traditional Minor Boundary Modification (S-251-2026) in FTZ 21R on behalf of Sunland Logistics Solutions on May 7, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Traditional Minor Boundary Modification (S-252-2026) in FTZ 102 on behalf of BASF Agricultural Solutions US LLC, Fenton/Palmyra, MO on May 12, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Traditional Minor Boundary Modification (S-253-2026) in FTZ 18G on behalf of Tesla Inc., Tracy, CA on May 12, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Traditional Minor Boundary Modification (S-254-2026) in FTZ 221 on behalf of JX Advanced Metaos USA Inc., Mesa, AZ on May 12, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Traditional Minor Boundary Modification (S-255-2026) in FTZ 50 on behalf of 8Clover Inc., Chino, CA on May 12, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Traditional Minor Boundary Modification (S-256-2026) in FTZ 77K on behalf of CE North America LLC, Memphis, TN on May 13, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Traditional Minor Boundary Modification (S-257-2026) in FTZ 147 on behalf of Mobile Video Devices Inc., Leesport, PA on May 13, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Traditional Minor Boundary Modification (S-258-2026) in FTZ 2 on behalf of The Kearney Companies Inc.- Bonita Dr., Chalmette, LA on May 13, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Traditional Minor Boundary Modification (S-259-2026) in FTZ 2 on behalf of The Kearney Companies Inc.- N Galvez St., New Orleans, LA on May 13, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Termination (S-260-2026) in FTZ 147 on behalf of Miri Technologies Inc., Leesport, PA on May 13, 2026
- FTZ Board Staff processed a processed a Traditional Minor Boundary Modification (S-261-2026) in FTZ 126I on behalf of Wabtec Transportation Systems LLC, Reno, NV on May 13, 2026
Foreign-Trade Zone Board Activity
-
- Coilcraft, Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for ferrous iron pre-fabrication material within Foreign-Trade Zone 288 in Hawarden, Iowa. MORE
- St. Louis County Port Authority, grantee, submitted an application requesting expansion of service area for their facility within Foreign-Trade Zone 102 in St. Louis, Missouri. MORE
- Turbocam Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for turbocharger and aircraft engine compressor components within Foreign-Trade Zone 81 in Barrington, Dover, and Rochester, New Hampshire. MORE
- Methods Machine Tools, Inc., received approval to operate their Acton and Sudbury, MA facilities as Foreign-Trade Zone 27T. MORE
- Patheon API, Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for Meloxicam, Xeloda, and Tamiflu within Foreign-Trade Zone 21 in Florence, South Carolina. MORE
- BASF Agricultural Solutions US LLC, submitted an application requesting subzone status for their facility within Foreign-Trade Zone 102 in Fenton and Palmyra, Missouri. MORE
- Tesla, Inc., submitted an application requesting subzone status for their facility within Foreign-Trade Zone 18 in Tracy, California. MORE
- Wabtec Transportation Systems, LLC, received approval to expand Subzone 247A, Site 1 to include additional acreage, to merge Subzone 247B into Subzone 247A and to add six additional sites in their Erie and Grove City, Pennsylvania facilities. MORE
- Golden Pass LNG Terminal LLC, submitted a notification of proposed production activity for a natural gas terminal within Foreign-Trade Zone 116 in Port Arthur, Texas. MORE
- Webco Industries, Inc., submitted an application requesting subzone status for their facility within Foreign-Trade Zone 164 in Kellyville, Oklahoma. MORE
- Patheon Manufacturing Services LLC, submitted a notification of proposed production activity for Opdualag within Foreign-Trade Zone 214 in Greenville, North Carolina. MORE
- Essai, Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for semiconductor test equipment within Foreign-Trade Zone 75 in Chandler, Arizona. MORE
- JAE Oregon Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for automotive electrical connectors and components within Foreign-Trade Zone 45 in Tualatin, Oregon. MORE
- Shiseido America, Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for cosmetic and beauty products within Foreign-Trade Zone 200 in East Windsor and Cranbury, New Jersey. MORE
- Shiseido America, Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for cosmetic and beauty products within Foreign-Trade Zone 138 in Groveport, Ohio. MORE
- Twin Disc, Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity for marine and heavy duty off highway power transmission equipment within Foreign-Trade Zone 297 in Lufkin, Texas. MORE
- PMI Services North America, Inc., received approval to operate their El Paso, Texas facility as Foreign-Trade Zone Subzone 68C. MORE
- Supreme International LLC dba Perry Ellis International, received approval to operate their Dublin, Georgia facility as Foreign-Trade Zone Subzone 104Y. MORE
- Pratt and Whitney Engine Services, Inc., submitted an application requesting subzone status for their facility within Foreign-Trade Zone 240 in Bridgeport, West Virginia. MORE
No Cake And Ice Cream Yet:
It was another month of dynamic trade developments for the foreign-trade zone community. While there is cause for optimism that trade terms will stabilize soon, too much remains unsettled to do any celebrating just yet.
Negotiations with China resulted in a temporary pause in the sky-high rates FTZs had been paying on their imports. But recent rhetoric from Washington suggests the pause won’t last past the 90 days of the agreement. If it even lasts that long.
The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the use of IEEPA to place a 10% additional tariff on all imports overstepped presidential authority. The IEEPA tariffs are still being collected until higher courts make a final ruling. The financial stakes are HUGE for both sides.
An investment deal in U.S. Steel prompted the doubling of Section 232 tariffs on imported steel and aluminum beginning this Thursday. Nothing on the table suggests those 50% rates will be reduced anytime soon. Zones need to prepare accordingly.
Foreign-trade zone applications are down. Way down. Staff losses at the Foreign-Trade Zones Board and the loss of the NPF status option appear to be taking their toll. Bonded Warehouse applications? Still overwhelming CBP in certain ports.
