Tariff Refund Claims Could Expose Major Supplier Enablement Gaps

First came the tariffs and their unpredictability, now come the refunds.

As covered here last week, Judge Richard Eaton at the Court of International Trade ordered the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to start the process of refunding importers the $130 billion collected under the now-illegal trade tariffs. The CBP has told a judge that it is developing a system to refund importers that will be ready within 45 days. However, the agency has not provided an estimate on how long it would take to process the refunds.

At least 1,800 companies have filed lawsuits seeking refunds on U.S. tariff payments. On its face, the issue looks like a government capacity problem: a flood of refund requests and a federal agency racing to upgrade its infrastructure.

But when the claims begin flowing, the bigger lesson may emerge elsewhere in the private sector. Many companies have not fully enabled their suppliers to provide the structured data and documentation needed to substantiate complex trade claims. The coming tariff refund wave may, as a result, become an unexpected stress test for supplier enablement.

The companies that recover tariff money fastest may be the ones that already solved a broader B2B challenge: enabling suppliers to deliver structured compliance data on demand.

See also: Tariff Whiplash in Washington Leaves CFOs Managing Cash Cycle Fallout

What the US Government Is About to Find Out About Supplier Enablement

Tariff refunds are not simply accounting adjustments. They require documentation, often detailed, historical and supplier-generated, to prove that tariffs were incorrectly paid or that goods qualify for reimbursement under a legal ruling.

For years, companies treated supplier onboarding as an administrative function tied to procurement and accounts payable. Increasingly, however, supplier enablement has become something more fundamental. It is the mechanism through which companies collect, standardize and maintain the supply chain data that regulators and courts now expect them to produce on demand.

Supply chains stretch across multiple tiers of manufacturers, distributors and component providers. Even when companies believe they have the necessary documentation, assembling it into a coherent claim can involve tracing information across years of transactions and dozens, or hundreds, of suppliers.

This is where the operational challenge emerges. Many companies do not store supplier documentation in structured systems designed for retrieval at scale. Instead, the information exists in fragmented formats: PDF attachments, email threads, spreadsheets and local document repositories.

The difficulty is compounded by the way many corporate systems evolved. Procurement platforms, enterprise resource planning systems and document management tools were often implemented independently, each serving a different function.

But without centralized systems for supplier documentation, the need to submit effective and compliant refund claims can fast turn manual and time-consuming and ultimately translate into lost recoveries.

Companies that can quickly assemble the necessary supplier records may be able to file claims earlier and resolve them faster. Those that cannot may find themselves racing to collect documentation from suppliers months after the original transactions.

Read more: Banks Are 2026’s Secret Weapon for Supplier Enablement

A Preview of the Next Phase of Supply Chains

Over the past decade, the concept of supplier enablement has gradually expanded. What once meant simply onboarding suppliers into procurement systems now encompasses a much broader set of capabilities. Supply chains are no longer evaluated solely on cost and efficiency. They are also expected to deliver transparency.

At the same time, what makes modern trade compliance difficult is not simply the complexity of the rules. It is the distribution of the data required to prove compliance.

Supplier enablement has therefore evolved from an operational convenience into a form of compliance infrastructure. Companies that can systematically collect and verify supplier data are better positioned to respond to regulatory changes. Those that cannot often find themselves scrambling to reconstruct supply chain histories after the fact.

Among the companies that have taken the government to court to recover their tariff payments are Costco, Goodyear, Revlon, Kawasaki and Bumble Bee Foods, all of which filed their cases before the Supreme Court decision came down. FedEx also filed suit and is believed to be the first major reimbursement litigation since the ruling, with Nintendo of America since having joined the lawsuit party on Friday (March 6).

Research by PYMNTS Intelligence found that more than half of the heads of payments at goods companies believed tariffs would negatively impact their firms, with nearly 90% expecting delivery delays, shortages or higher raw material costs.