Importers shift supply chain strategy ahead of July tariff deadline
The Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s earlier emergency tariffs, and a federal appeals court has now cleared the way for refunds to move forward. But for importers — and for shoppers who could still face higher prices and longer delivery times — the uncertainty has not gone away.
Instead, the ruling shifted companies from one tariff system to another temporary one. The replacement framework under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 caps tariffs at 15% and limits them to 150 days unless Congress extends them.
Supply chain strategist Tara Buchler told Straight Arrow News that the window runs through July 24 and is forcing companies to make near-term decisions while preparing for what comes after.
“This window has a hard end date but no clear policy signal about what comes after it,” said Buchler, principal of strategy at JBF Consulting. She said companies handling the shift best are treating July 24 “as a near-term planning horizon, not a finish line.”
While companies adjust to the replacement tariff framework, courts are still sorting out what happens to the duties collected under the earlier one.
The appeals court rejected the Trump administration’s request to delay enforcement of the Supreme Court decision, sending the case back to the U.S. Court of International Trade. But that court has since suspended an earlier order requiring immediate refunds after Customs and Border Protection said repaying roughly $166 billion would take time.
Any refunds would go to the importer of record, the company that paid the duties, not directly to consumers, according to trade law experts interviewed by SAN. Some companies have said they plan to pass refunds along, but most are not legally required to do so, those experts said.
According to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, U.S. importers and consumers paid about 96% of the cost of Trump’s tariffs, while foreign exporters bore only about 4%.
What it could mean for shoppers
Buchler said a separate disruption is already hitting small-parcel shipping after the suspension of the de minimis exemption, which had allowed some sub-$800 shipments to clear with minimal documentation.
Those packages now face formal entry requirements, pushing carriers and sellers to expand compliance capacity quickly, Buchler said. She said consumers could see the effects through higher prices and longer delivery times.
Why companies are still adjusting
Buchler said businesses are still making fast decisions because they still lack clarity about what comes after July 24.
“The current environment demands procurement decisions on a timeline measured in hours, days or weeks, and many organizations simply aren’t structured for that speed,” Buchler said.
She said companies best positioned for volatility are investing in the ability to execute quickly under more than one scenario.
“That means importers can’t simply ‘sprint’ through 150 days of accelerated purchasing, but they also have to plan for multiple possible scenarios on day 151,” Buchler said.
How one importer is responding
Buchler described an anonymized example of a high-value electronics importer that has begun routing inbound containers through a Foreign Trade Zone, or FTZ, to delay duty payments.
She said the goal is to keep product positioned in the United States without committing to duties while trade policy remains uncertain.
However, the shift adds steps, such as FTZ handling or cross-docking, that were not part of the company’s earlier model, Buchler said. Those added handoffs require tighter inventory controls so duty calculations are accurate when goods formally enter U.S. commerce.
Foreign trade zones can change when duties are paid and, in some cases, lower the effective tariff bill. The International Trade Administration says FTZs are licensed U.S. sites where duties can be deferred until merchandise enters U.S. commerce and eliminated on goods that are re-exported.
How some importers are responding
Buchler said the current window creates two pressures at once: companies must confirm duty exposure and classifications for what is moving now, while also developing contingency plans for what tariffs might look like after July 24.
She said companies are generally taking one of three routes. Some are pulling forward inventory in price-sensitive categories where a 15% rate materially changes costs and where they worry higher rates could return. Others are sticking closer to normal purchasing patterns because their procurement timelines are longer, pricing power is stronger, or sourcing is already diversified. A third set is building scenario models to map landed costs, lead times and logistics capacity across multiple post-July outcomes so they can move quickly when policy becomes clearer.
Buchler said it is still early in the 150-day period and that the surge-and-congestion forecasts have not yet been evident. She said her team is watching booking volumes on key origin-destination lanes, container-rate shifts that can signal capacity competition, and warehousing availability and pricing in major distribution markets.
“If frontloading causes a surge in transportation demand now or after the 150-day window,” Buchler said, “we expect the more visible physical bottlenecks — port congestion, warehouse capacity, carrier capacity — to follow.”
But early bottlenecks are showing up in planning and systems, Buchler said, including maintaining accurate tariff classifications and working around procurement cycles built for quarterly bids or annual carrier contracts.
What the courts said
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act could not support the “extraordinary power” the president asserted to impose emergency tariffs of “unlimited amount, duration and scope.”
“In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it,” Roberts wrote for the majority.
Separately, Cato Institute analysts Clark Packard and Alfredo Carrillo Obregon questioned whether Section 122 fits the administration’s stated rationale. They wrote that Section 122 is aimed at “situations of fundamental international payments problems,” which the statute ties to “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits and/or risks of “imminent and significant” dollar depreciation.
They argued that a trade deficit is not the same as a balance-of-payments deficit, adding that if Section 122 tariffs face legal challenges, that distinction could become important.
Ella Rae Greene, Editor In Chief
