CropLife Retail Week: Trump’s $160 Billion Tariff Refund and What Happens After July 24?

In this edition, CropLife Editor Eric Sfiligoj and special guest Jim DeLisi of Fanwood Chemical break down the chaos of the tariff refund system and the looming July 24 window for importers.

Can’t see the video? To view it, please accept cookies by clicking the icon in the bottom-right corner of the screen, or click here.
♦ Subscribe to CropLife Retail Week’s Youtube Channel

*Below is a partial and edited transcript:

Eric Sfiligoj:
Hello. Welcome to another edition of CropLife Retail Week. I’m Eric Sfiligoj, Editor, CropLife, here with special guest Jim DeLisi from Fanwood Chemical. Jim, welcome back to the program.

Jim DeLisi:
Glad to be here.

Eric Sfiligoj:
Yeah, glad to have you. So, hey, I know the last time I had you on the program, I think was back late last year in November, and at that time, one of the hot topics we were talking about were the trade tariffs that the Trump administration had put across the board on many countries when it came to goods coming into the United States.

And we were at that point that that initiative was going before the Supreme Court to be considered, whether it was actually within the jurisdiction of the president to do this or not. And we speculated a lot in that broadcast. But since then, obviously, we now, a couple of months after that, have a decision. The Supreme Court did strike down the tariffs. So where do things stand right now with this whole tariff situation?

Jim DeLisi:
Well, that’s correct, Eric. In mid-February, the Supreme Court said, “Sorry, Mr. Trump, you overstepped the bounds of that law,” and they declared what he had done invalid. The one thing they did not add—and Mr. Trump talked about many times in various forums—was a line that said, “Thou shalt refund the money.” In fact, if you search the decision, you will only find the word “refund” once, and it’s in Mr. Gorsuch’s dissenting opinion, saying refunds will be a disaster, basically.

Well, there was a lot of speculation because the president sounded like he might appeal the idea of refunds or would definitely slow-walk it if he could. What we find is that’s not the case. There were cases teed up in the Court of International Trade to require the administration to refund. Those cases had been put on ice until after the decision was made.

Once the decision came down, within 30 days, you had a decision that said they must refund the money. Then Customs said, “We’re going to need an awful lot of time to do this because it’s extraordinarily difficult,” and there are multiple billions of dollars involved—between $160 billion and $170 billion in refunds.

The Court of International Trade basically said, “Get it done.” Customs has been working to set up a system to do just that. It’s going to be in at least two pieces. The first piece has already rolled out. It started about two weeks ago—April 20th.

The first ability to apply for funds was put into place. In order to do it, you have to be in the so-called ACE system so that it can all be done electronically. Then you file a motion in the Consolidated Administration and Processing Entries refund system. It is said to be reasonably straightforward.

You can do it yourself if you are the importer of record, or the importer’s customs broker can do it. You go into the system, get signed up, and file the entry numbers. You can do them in segments—this entry, then another, and so on.

Customs then lines those up internally, and refunds are supposed to be relatively automatic within 60 days, with 7% interest compounded from when you paid the money. That works for entries that have not been “liquidated.” Liquidation means all paperwork has been finalized.

It normally takes nine months to a year for that to occur, but about 40% of entries eligible for refunds have already been liquidated. There is not yet a process for those. It’s hoped they’ll create one without requiring protests on every entry, which would be costly and time-consuming.

Money should start flowing, but there’s concern in Congress about ensuring refunds go back to those who actually paid. Legally, if you are the importer of record, it’s your money—you decide what to do with it.

Eric Sfiligoj:
Okay, all right. I was going to ask whether suppliers or companies affected by this could get the money, or if it was just the shippers. So it’s going to be up to the shippers to decide how to handle it.

Is there any mechanism for customers to communicate with shippers, or do they just have to do that directly?

Jim DeLisi:
You have to remember that refunds aren’t only about consumer products. For example, Ford reported a $1.3 billion entry related to tariff refunds. I can’t imagine a consumer going to a dealer asking for their share of that.

The value of refunds varies. In crop protection chemicals, an imported active ingredient might be heavily diluted during formulation. A $1 tariff on the technical product might become just a few cents in the final product. Calculating that is extremely difficult.

Some companies absorbed tariffs; others itemized them on invoices. If it’s itemized, it’s easier to request a refund. Otherwise, it’s complicated and depends on company policy and relationships. It’s going to be messy.

Eric Sfiligoj:
And it sounds like it’ll be a prolonged process.

Jim DeLisi:
Nobody’s going to receive money for 60 to 90 days. If someone asks now, companies will say they haven’t received it yet.

Eric Sfiligoj:
All right. Following up on this—you mentioned in a recent presentation that this likely isn’t the end of tariffs from the Trump administration. The president likes tariffs. What might happen next?

Jim DeLisi:
There are several sections in U.S. law that allow tariffs. One is Section 301. In 2018–2019, the administration used Section 301 for tariffs on China.

They’ve already begun two new Section 301 investigations—one on forced labor (about 65 countries) and another on overcapacity (about 19 countries plus the EU). For example, excess production in foreign industries can depress U.S. markets.

But Section 301 requires a process—announcements, hearings, and legal review—which takes time. There’s also an ongoing investigation into China’s compliance with the Phase One agreement from 2020. That should have been straightforward, but six months later, results still aren’t announced.

Meanwhile, the current 10% tariffs under Section 122 expire July 24. If Section 301 tariffs aren’t ready by then, there could be a temporary window with no additional tariffs.

Eventually, the administration may reinstate negotiated reciprocity rates—15% for some regions, higher for others—but we’ll have to see.

Eric Sfiligoj:
That window could create a surge in shipping if companies try to time imports.

Jim DeLisi:
Only companies using bonded warehouses or free trade zones can really take advantage. Timing matters—a difference of minutes in entry time can mean hundreds of thousands of dollars. It’s very complex.

Eric Sfiligoj:
Got it. We’ll keep that in mind. Jim, you mentioned China earlier. They responded to tariffs with their own measures, especially affecting U.S. agriculture. What’s happening now?

Jim DeLisi:
The U.S.-China relationship is extremely complicated. A planned presidential trip was postponed and rescheduled, but it may change again.

China retaliated with tariffs on agricultural goods, which hurt U.S. farmers. Commodity prices have stagnated while input costs have risen.

A successful visit could reopen markets, but there are many tensions—existing tariffs, compliance disputes, VAT policy changes, and more. There are also geopolitical risks involving Iran, rare earth metals, and supply chains.

There’s just a lot going on, making it hard to predict.

Eric Sfiligoj:
Sounds like we’ll have more to discuss in a few months.

Jim DeLisi:
Guaranteed.

Eric Sfiligoj:
Before we wrap up, let’s talk about USMCA. The agreement needs reaffirmation by June 30. What’s happening there?

Jim DeLisi:
USMCA includes a six-year review clause. By June 30, 2026, it must be reaffirmed or enter a renegotiation phase.

There’s discussion about shifting toward bilateral agreements. Automotive manufacturing is a key issue, especially concerns about Chinese companies using Mexico as a gateway.

USMCA has proven valuable—for example, resolving disputes over GMO corn exports to Mexico.

For the chemical industry, key issues include duty drawback and rules of origin. Current rules require 50% of active ingredients to originate within the region, preventing tariff circumvention. Maintaining these rules is critical to protect U.S. manufacturing.

Eric Sfiligoj:
All right. Jim, thanks again for joining us and sharing your insights. We’ll definitely have you back soon.

Jim DeLisi:
Thanks, Eric. Looking forward to it.