On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorize the tariffs imposed under it, including the fentanyl and reciprocal tariffs. The administration ended those duties the same month. The duties did not disappear. The framework shifted legal authority from IEEPA to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, and the tariffs were reissued under the new authority. The transshipment enforcement framework moved with it: the 40 percent transshipment penalty for goods routed through Vietnam to evade tariffs was reissued under Section 122 and now sits under CBP HTS code 9903.02.01.
The Section 122 surcharge that replaced the IEEPA reciprocal duties is 10 percent, applied as an additional duty on top of the column 1 rate and the other Chapter 99 actions. The May 7, 2026, Court of International Trade ruling in Oregon v. United States, consolidated with Burlap and Barrel v. United States, had already struck down the Section 122 proclamation once, and the framework has shifted again since, with USTR Section 301 findings expected to publish and a Section 122 sunset around July 24, 2026, in the background. The authority is unstable, the rate is not. The Section 301 forced-labor duty has the same shape: a separate action, a separate heading, and a rate that stacks on top of everything else.
The IEEPA duties already paid are being refunded through a separate CBP process, not through drawback. That distinction matters, because importers who mix the IEEPA refund into a drawback claim get the claim rejected. The IEEPA refund process is CBP's own mechanism for returning duties collected under an authority the Court held invalid, and it runs on its own timeline, with its own documentation. Drawback is a refund of duties paid on imports that are later exported or destroyed. The IEEPA refund is a refund of duties that should never have been collected. They are different programs with different forms, and filing one as the other wastes months.
The practical question for an importer is which entries are affected, and the answer is in the entry date. Entries that paid IEEPA duties before February 2026 are in the refund process. Entries after the reissue pay Section 122 instead. The two sets of entries need different handling, different documentation, and different expectations about timing. De minimis is gone too, and the same importers are dealing with both changes at once: the exemption that made small parcels duty-free, and the authority that set the rate on everything else. The entries that need the most attention are the ones filed in the window between the Court's ruling and the reissue, because that is where the authority is hardest to prove.
Pull the entries from February through July 2026 and sort them by the authority cited on the entry summary. Any entry that cites IEEPA as the authority for a duty is in the refund process, and the refund needs to be claimed, not waited for. Any entry that cites Section 122 needs the rate checked against the current proclamation, because the Section 122 rate and scope have moved more than once. And any entry that cites both, for different lines on the same entry, needs a broker to confirm the lines are correct, because the stacking is where the errors hide.
The check that matters most is the transshipment one. Goods found to be transshipped through Vietnam to evade tariffs face a 40 percent rate instead of the normal one, and the penalty was reissued under Section 122 after the Court's ruling, so it did not lapse with IEEPA. An importer whose goods route through Vietnam needs the origin documentation in place before the shipment sails, because the documentation supporting the origin claim has to exist before the goods move, not after CBP asks for it. Tariff stacking is the same problem in a different form: the rate is never one number, and the entry that reports one number is the entry that gets liquidated wrong.
The Supreme Court struck them down on February 20, 2026, in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, holding that IEEPA did not authorize the tariffs. The administration ended those duties the same month and reissued the framework under Section 122 of the Trade Act.
The surcharge that replaced the IEEPA reciprocal duties is 10 percent, applied on top of the column 1 rate and the other Chapter 99 actions. The transshipment penalty under Section 122 is 40 percent, under HTS code 9903.02.01.
Through a separate CBP refund process, not through drawback. The IEEPA duties were collected under an authority the Court held invalid, so CBP refunds them through its own mechanism. Mixing them into a drawback claim gets the claim rejected.
Yes. The 40 percent transshipment penalty for goods routed through Vietnam to evade tariffs was reissued under Section 122 and now sits under HTS code 9903.02.01. Origin documentation has to be in place before the shipment sails.