Skip to main content

Customs Issues Notice on Imposing Temporary Section 122 Duties

Posted on: February 24, 2026

Customs and Border Protection has issued CSMS #67844987 providing formal implementation guidance for the temporary 10% global tariff imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The additional duty applies to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, beginning at 12:01 a.m. EST on February 24, 2026 and continuing through 12:01 a.m. EDT on July 24, 2026, unless an exemption applies.

 

Notable exemptions outlined in the CSMS include:

• Goods that were loaded onto a vessel at the port of export and were in transit to the United States prior to 12:01 a.m. EST on February 24, 2026, provided they are entered for consumption before 12:01 a.m. EST on February 28, 2026

• Qualifying goods from Canada and Mexico that are entered free of duty under the United States Mexico Canada Agreement

• Certain limited product categories specifically identified in Chapter 99 (none that impact beverage alcohol)

 

The CSMS confirms that existing Section 232 tariffs and exclusions remain in place and are not changed by this action and that drawback is available for the Section 122 duties.

 

Regarding the IEEPA refunds, many details remain uncertain. However, Senate Democrats have introduced the Tariff Refund Act of 2026, which outlines a proposed framework for issuing refunds. If enacted, the bill would require that IEEPA tariff refunds be paid with interest and issued within 180 days of the law’s enactment. It would also require U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to reliquidate entries where IEEPA tariffs were previously applied and issue refunds accordingly.

 

Additionally, the proposed legislation directs CBP to prioritize refund payments to small businesses. The likelihood of the bill’s passage remains uncertain given the current composition of the chamber, though the upcoming midterm elections could shift.

President Trump stated during his February 20 press conference that the refund process was not discussed with the Supreme Court and suggested that refunds would need to be litigated, saying, “I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years…”


At this stage, the path forward for IEEPA refunds remains unclear, with both legislative and potential litigation routes in play. We will continue to monitor developments closely and provide updates as more definitive guidance becomes available.