An Oxford-based craft beer and sake importer says it is owed $518,539 in tariff refunds after a February Supreme Court ruling overturned the Trump administration’s trade regime.
The company, B. United International, is not alone. Cindi Bigelow, president and CEO of Bigelow Tea in Fairfield, said the cost to her family business runs into the millions.
Both companies have filed lawsuits in the U.S. Court of International Trade seeking refunds, joining at least nine Connecticut businesses — and more than 2,000 nationwide — that have sued for reimbursement since the Supreme Court struck down tariffs imposed under the federal International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
“The tariffs have cost our company millions of dollars,” said Bigelow, whose family business produces specialty teas sold in supermarkets and retail stores nationwide. “We truly appreciate the opportunity for potential financial relief to help support our employees, their families and the communities where we live and work. We are hopeful for a positive and timely resolution.”
The checks have yet to arrive. And for most businesses, it may be months, or longer, before they do.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Feb. 20 that IEEPA — the emergency powers law the Trump administration used to impose duties on imports from dozens of countries — does not give the president authority to impose tariffs in response to trade deficits.
The ruling, however, did not address how businesses can recover what they paid.
“There’s still some uncertainty there,” said Kevin Daly, a lawyer at Robinson+Cole in Hartford who advises clients on trade compliance matters. “We don’t have finality as to what the administrative process that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is developing is going to look like at the end of the day.”
Nationally, businesses paid an estimated $150 billion to $175 billion in IEEPA tariffs since early 2025, Daly said.
Businesses pursuing refunds have options. One is to wait for CBP to launch an online portal for submitting claims. CBP told the Court of International Trade in a March declaration that the system could be ready within roughly 45 days and that work is already underway.
Another option is to file a lawsuit in the trade court, either independently or by joining an existing action.
Ross Hofherr, co-leader of the international trade practice at law firm Harris Beach Murtha, recommends that most businesses focus on the government’s administrative track first.
“Litigation can be costly,” he said. “If the government is setting up this process, … importers would be well served by following that process.”
But Hofherr said uncertainty has pushed some companies to file lawsuits anyway. It’s unclear how long the portal process will take from submission to payment.
Also, the administrative system is expected to cover only imports finalized within 180 days before the court’s March 4 order — roughly those from September 2025 onward.
Businesses that paid tariffs in the spring and summer of 2025, when the reciprocal duties took effect, may fall outside that window and need to pursue litigation.
“The calculus for an individual company will depend on their individual circumstances and their assessment of the risks,” Daly said.
Companies in line
In addition to Bigelow and B. United, at least seven other Connecticut businesses have filed lawsuits in the trade court. They include Stamford furniture maker Lovesac; Wallingford connector manufacturer Amphenol; Middlebury’s Timex Group; RBC Bearings of Oxford; Wilton luxury watch company Breitling USA; lighting manufacturer Q-Tran in Milford; and Engineering Services and Products Co. (ESAPCO), of South Windsor.
The filings reflect a range of motivations. Some — like Amphenol and Timex — were filed before the Supreme Court even ruled, as a hedge to preserve their refund claims. Others, like RBC Bearings, were filed after the ruling and take a simpler approach, citing the February Supreme Court decision directly without making constitutional arguments.
B. United’s complaint stands out for disclosing a precise dollar figure and for arguing that its specialty products — small batch beers, ciders, sakes and meads — have no domestic substitutes.
Beyond the legal fight, tariffs have weighed on companies’ finances and business decisions.
In its most recently completed fiscal year, which ended Feb. 1, publicly traded furniture manufacturer Lovesac said higher tariff and shipping costs contributed to a 2.1 percentage-point decline in its gross margin. The company said it tried to offset those costs through price increases and expense reductions, but heavier discounting limited those gains.
For the full year, Lovesac’s net income fell to $4.1 million from $11.6 million a year earlier — a roughly 65% decline.
Lovesac said it’s also in the process of onshoring its manufacturing, including its Sactionals product line — part of a broader shift among some U.S. companies seeking to reduce tariff exposure.
Trade duties are affecting more companies than just those that have filed suit. Danbury-based Ethan Allen Interiors said tariffs have cut into its profits, while New Britain-based Stanley Black & Decker is shifting manufacturing out of China.
Who gets the money?
Even for businesses entitled to refunds, determining who receives the money can be complicated. Under customs law, only the importer of record — the company listed on the customs paperwork — can file a claim.
In many supply chains, however, tariff costs were passed along to buyers, embedded in contract prices or added as fees, creating additional complexity.
Hofherr said client questions have shifted over the past year, from how to pass tariff costs on to customers to how to recover those costs — including how to claim refunds and negotiate with supply chain partners.
Refunds, when they come, are also expected to carry interest.
“We’re not only talking about a dollar-for-dollar refund of the tariffs that were paid,” Hofherr said. “We’re also talking about interest, which can really add up.”
Matt Gaieski, a principal at national accounting firm CLA (CliftonLarsonAllen), said companies generally cannot record expected tariff refunds as income under current accounting rules.
Instead, companies can only recognize the income once the money is received or legally secured, he said.
Companies that deducted tariff costs as business expenses may also face tax implications if those costs are later refunded.
“Businesses should consider how to treat legal fees incurred to recover the tariffs, including whether those costs can be deducted right away or must be spread out over time,” Gaieski added.
Connecticut businesses with the largest tariff exposure — and therefore the largest potential refunds — tend to be manufacturers and distributors sourcing goods from China, India and Brazil, Gaieski said.
The Supreme Court ruling applies only to tariffs imposed under IEEPA. Steel and aluminum tariffs imposed under separate authority remain in effect.
That means Connecticut manufacturers in the defense and aerospace sectors, which rely heavily on those materials, have received little tariff relief, Gaieski added.
New tariff fight
Even as businesses seek refunds from past tariffs, a new round of trade measures is already taking shape.
On the same day as the Supreme Court ruling, the Trump administration imposed a 10% across-the-board tariff on most imports under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, citing trade imbalances.
The tariff took effect Feb. 24 and is set to expire around July 24, unless Congress extends it.
The measure is already facing legal challenges. Connecticut is among 24 states that have sued, arguing the administration has not met the law’s requirement that the tariff be tied to a “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficit.
In March, Attorney General William Tong sought a court order to block the tariff, calling it “just as irrational, just as lawless” as the first round. A three-judge panel of the Court of International Trade has scheduled oral arguments for April 10.
Planning ahead has become difficult for businesses amid the uncertain legal landscape, experts said.
“It’s a challenge, certainly,” Daly said. “Companies look at their contracts and their agreements with their suppliers and their customers, and try to examine how they can allocate and plan for that risk.”
The environment is likely to keep shifting, Daly added, noting that “what’s in place now may not be what’s in place three months from now.”
Advisers say preparation should be the focus. Businesses should work with customs brokers to compile entry records — what was paid, when and under which tariff classification — so a claim can be submitted as soon as the CBP refund system opens.
“There’s a lot in this process that businesses cannot control,” Hofherr said. “The one thing they can control is getting everything in order and being ready to file once the system goes live.”
