Protecting the 180?Day Golden Window for Tariff Refunds? Trump Threat Keeps Corporate Calculus Complicated [Invest&Law]

Supreme Court Rules IEEPA?Based Tariffs Unlawful
Promptly Review Customs Clearance Dates and Liquidation Status
File Protests Within 180 Days of Liquidation
Use Post Summary Correction Procedures if Not Yet Liquidated

Trump Cites Section 122 of the Trade Act
Announces 15% Tariff Hike for the Day After the Ruling
Possibility of Deploying Even Stronger Section 301 Measures
Close Monitoring of U.S. Policy Redesign Is Essential

As the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the high tariffs imposed by the Donald Trump administration based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were unlawful, companies are scrambling to devise response strategies. For companies to have the tariffs refunded pursuant to the U.S. judiciary's decision, they must actively exercise their refund rights, including by filing objections. However, experts point out that, since tariff pressure from the U.S. administration remains strong, companies need to comprehensively consider the impact on their local operations and the potential redesign of U.S. tariff policy.

According to the legal community on February 25, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on February 20 (local time) that tariffs imposed on the basis of the IEEPA exceeded the authority of the executive branch and were therefore unlawful. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, emphasized that under the Constitution, the power to levy taxes is granted exclusively to Congress, and that the mere wording of "import restrictions" in the IEEPA cannot be interpreted as delegating taxing authority to the executive branch. As a result of this ruling, the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China under the pretext of combating fentanyl smuggling, as well as the so?called "reciprocal tariffs," have lost their legal basis.

Even though the Supreme Court has issued its decision, the U.S. government will not automatically refund tariffs paid on an unlawful basis, making active corporate responses essential. A representative of Bae, Kim & Lee LLC (Taepyeongyang) noted, "Although the reciprocal tariffs have been invalidated, existing item?specific tariffs on products such as steel and automobiles remain in place, and whether IEEPA?based tariffs already paid will be refunded must be determined by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT)," adding, "Companies should promptly review the timing of customs clearance and whether the tax amount has been finalized, and move quickly to preserve their rights by filing objections and other measures."

The approach to securing refunds differs depending on whether the import declaration has been liquidated. For entries where the duties have already been finalized, an objection must be filed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) within 180 days from the date of liquidation; if this deadline is missed, the right to a refund is extinguished. For entries that have not yet been finalized, companies can seek refunds through the Post Summary Correction (PSC) process.

If the Supreme Court ruling has a financial impact through tariff refunds, companies must complete the necessary practical steps. The trade and industry team at Yulchon LLC has proposed a four?step response plan for companies: (1) opening an Automated Clearing House (ACH) refund account in the United States, (2) identifying eligible import entries and preparing documentation, (3) verifying the liquidation status of import declarations, and (4) strategically coordinating the timing of protests.

A Yulchon representative said, "Companies must comprehensively consider risks such as the possibility of alternative tariffs being imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 and the impact on the local business environment," adding, "When filing objections, it is advisable to use the Accelerated Disposition mechanism to prevent CBP from arbitrarily delaying processing."

The Korean government has also stepped in to support companies. The Korea Customs Service plans to provide company?specific information on refunds and support with the procedures for exporters that shipped goods on Delivered Duty Paid (DDP) terms and therefore bore the tariffs directly.

However, this ruling does not mean that the tariff threat originating from Trump has disappeared completely. Immediately after the decision, President Trump invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a temporary 10% import surcharge on all imports worldwide and announced the following day that he would raise it to 15%.

Commenting on this, a legal expert said, "President Trump, now on the defensive, could resort to other legal tools such as Section 301 of the Trade Act and draw an even sharper sword," adding, "Since new fear and uncertainty have emerged in the market, it is crucial to closely monitor how the Trump administration redesigns its trade policy." Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, often cited as the most powerful provision in U.S. trade law, authorizes the United States to impose retaliatory tariffs and other measures when unfair foreign trade practices are found to harm U.S. interests.