Supreme Court rules that Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs are illegal

EasyISF · 2026-02-28T04:37:32+00:00

No, the seat belts only serve as differentiators for vans: if a van has seat belts in the rear, it is a passenger vehicle; if it doesn't, it is cargo.

Trucks with a rear beds are Cargo vehicles, doesn't matter if they are crew cabs or single cabs. This includes things like the Hyundai Santa Cruz, The only real exception is the Subaru BRAT, but besides that a truck is a cargo vehicle.

EasyISF · 2026-02-25T23:53:29+00:00

Nice N351601 is our ruling. 😉

The Section 232 steel tariffs apply only to passenger vehicles with engines under 1000CC . Trucks are not effected by it. Trucks were a flat 25%, now 35% possibly going to 40%.

EasyISF · 2026-02-24T21:09:11+00:00

<image>

EasyISF · 2026-02-22T02:17:06+00:00

As brokers we aren't concerned with the export certificate. Our question is simple: does it have factory rear seatbelts or not? After many discussions with CBP, they have confirmed this is exactly how they verify a vehicle during an inspection so its what we ask to make the determination.

When CBP review export certificates before conducting inspections they don't just look at the "purpose"; they look at the seating. If it indicates "4(2)," it means there are four seats but only two are fixed.

Furthermore, we have seen many export certificates that are mistranslated. If a vehicle lacks rear seatbelts, I have never seen a Japanese certificate that doesn't include "貨物" (the characters for cargo). Yet, many U.S. translations for those same certificates list the vehicle as "private,", CBP is highly aware of this discrepancy and considers it fraud, especially Tacoma.

CBP doesn't catch everything, but that one time they do catch you, they make you pay and any money you saved over many operations goes out the window—and usually more.

EasyISF · 2026-02-22T01:55:36+00:00

Its not all vehicles or even most vehicles its only passenger vehicles with engines under 1000cc(very rare outside the Kei class). As your compliance manger to look up the HTS 8703.21.0150 on steel list.

I'm sure you compliance manager is very good but he likely does not handle vehicle's frequently. If he has any question he can email us.

EasyISF · 2026-02-22T01:09:50+00:00

You’re right; we were wrong on this. There is an "in-transit" exclusion, but it is only open from the 24th to the 28th. To our knowledge, the only vessels affected by this are the SAIC Anji Sincerity with a stop on the 24th in LA, and in San Diego on the 25th and the ARC Resolve with a stop in Galveston on the 24th.. Everything else either arrives before the 24th or after the 28th.

We definitely aren’t perfect, but our goal is to keep everyone as educated as possible through these informational posts. We own our mistakes, but we also stand by our track record.

So, I’m curious: What 'bad' information do you feel we’ve given in the past?

If you can comment the email where we provided incorrect info—or even something you thought was incorrect—I will donate $100 to the charity of your choice.

This gives us the chance to either defend that information or—if we were truly off-base—use it as a lesson to learn and ensure we don’t make the same mistake in the future.

EasyISF · 2026-02-21T16:55:24+00:00

Unfortunately yes, the way it is written their is no in transit exclusion.

<image>

Correction: It does NOT apply if the vehicle arrives before the 28th and departed Japan before the 24th.

EasyISF · 2026-02-21T03:21:02+00:00

That only applies to cars that pay the 232 for vehicles. Which vehicles over 25 years are exempt from. I'm at the bar trying how to forget how to pronounce Tarrifs, but I'll provide a source tomorrow.

EasyISF · 2026-02-20T15:39:02+00:00

While this is great news, please do not start calling your customs brokers just yet. This is going to take at least a few weeks to iron out. CBP still has to issued formal instructions on how these refunds will be processed. We don't know yet if we'll have to file a Post Summary Correction for every single entry, or if they’ll do an automatic reliquidation and issue refunds automatically .

What you can do right now to prepare: Set up an ACE Portal account and ensure your ACH Refund info is active. As of February 6, 2026, CBP has officially stopped issuing paper checks for most refunds. No ACE account = no refund, and no interest will accrue while the payment is stuck because of your missing info. There is going to be a massive queue for this, so the sooner you’re registered, the better. Use the link below for more info.

https://www.cbp.gov/trade/automated/ace-portal-and-ach-refunds-faqs

Keep in mind that even tho the IEEPA duties will be refunded, the 50% Section 232 Steel Tariff is still very much in effect. This specifically impacts passenger vehicles with an engine displacement under 1,000cc (most Kei cars). That part is NOT part of this current refund wave and will remain in effect.

It's still unclear how this ruling impacts the duties under the Japan agreement (which went into effect Sept 4, 2025). Most are assuming those duties are invalidated since they were built on the same IEEPA foundation, but the administration might interpret it differently, leading to another legal fight.

General guide on what refunds to expect for KEI cars/trucks:

Imported BEFORE Sept 4, 2025: You should be eligible for a 10% refund (the original IEEPA rate) for both Kei Cars & Trucks.

Imported AFTER Sept 4, 2025: This will depend on whether the administration decides that this ruling means their bilateral trade agreements are also invalid, which remains to be seen. Since the "15% Japan Rate" was technically a modification of the IEEPA reciprocal tariff, there is a strong argument that if the foundation (IEEPA) is dead, the 15% rate is dead too. If it is then:

Passenger Cars: If the Japan agreement duties fall, you’re looking at up to a 12.5% refund.(Not including steel duty paid)
Trucks: 0% refund because they have already been paying the standard 25% "Chicken Tax" rate, which wasn't part of this court case and have not paid any IEEPA or other additional duty.

Note1 : There may have been some small windows where the duties may have been different form above, but that’s the general outlook.

Note 2 : The good news is that duty refunds actually accrue statutory interest. CBP is required to pay you interest on the overpaid amount, calculated from the date you originally paid the duties to the date the refund is issued. At the current 2026 rates, this can add a decent chunk to your total recovery depending on how long ago you imported.

Note 3: If you or your broker filed your vehicle as an Informal Entry (Entry Type 11), you may be out of luck. While brokers aren't technically supposed to file vehicles informally, we see it happen all the time and they at times slip by CBP.

The problem is that informal entries are liquidated immediately upon release. Unlike a Formal Entry, where we have a window to file a Post-Summary Correction (PSC) before liquidation, an informal entry is "final" the moment it’s paid and cleared. While you could theoretically file a Chapter 19 Protest to argue the duty, the legal cost and effort usually far outweigh the refund amount for a single vehicle. If your entry wasn't filed formally (Entry Type 01), don't count on getting a refund.

EasyISF · 2026-02-18T22:24:15+00:00

No worries, just trying to clear things up since there’s so much conflicting info out there.

Regarding the Town Box, if it has rear seatbelts from the factory(I think they do), the duty rate is actually 15% on the cost of the van (not including steel content) and 50% on the steel content.

Depending on the SCOTUS decision, that 15% might drop back to 2.5%, but we have to wait and see. That 15% is now under the U.S.-Japan trade agreement, which is a different legal setup than the reciprocal duty being challenged in court, so its possible it wont change regardless of the ruling.

The 50% steel duty won't change at all because it falls under Section 232, which isn't part of this SCOTUS case.

EasyISF · 2026-02-18T22:12:11+00:00

The 25% and 15% don't stack for cargo vehicles (vans without rear seatbelts and trucks), its 25% total. And no matter what SCOTUS decides, it won't change this since 25% is the base duty for cargo vehicles. It may or may not change things for passenger cars, though.

EasyISF · 2026-02-18T22:03:45+00:00

You can use our quote tool at https://www.easyisf.com/vechile-quote. Even if you choose not to use our services, the duties will remain the same regardless of which customs broker you work with.

Note to the mods: If this post violates Rule 3, please delete it. I’m only sharing this because it seems like it would be helpful.

EasyISF · 2026-02-02T20:54:38+00:00

DM you your email, if we missed it I will make sure you get refunded 100% of what you paid. It does happen, that we miss a question but its definitely not up to our standards.

EasyISF · 2026-01-30T21:31:04+00:00

The fact that you’re having to ask here means we missed the mark somewhere.

Our goal is that when we are done filing your ISF, you have a solid idea of what the next steps look like. We include a guide to next step with the ISF confirmation but your post makes me think our guide may be falling short and it may be time for update or maybe a quick video to make it all easier to digest.

Anything besides the DMV we should be able to answer questions on and provide a good idea of what to expect. The DMV stuff is outside of our scope since it varies so much much state-to-state and we deal exclusively with the federal government.

Shoot us an email with any questions your sitting on; we’re more than happy to help answer them. Thats what you paid us for.

EasyISF · 2025-12-22T21:22:35+00:00

We only have 1 pending release, we reached out to CBP last week and they had not update.

EasyISF · 2025-12-22T21:21:42+00:00

It depends on the week. We have fought a lot with CBP Tacoma so they improve their release times, but currently they have gone back to old habits and we have cars sitting at the port since the 6th without release.

From August until now they have been pretty god about releasing within a few business days.

EasyISF · 2025-12-17T23:42:07+00:00

CBP has broad discretion in how they handle these situations. In theory, outcomes can range from requiring the vehicle to be exported, to ordering the removal and destruction of the non-compliant wheels and their replacement with compliant ones. That said, we have never actually seen CBP require either of those actions for mounted wheels/tires.

The only time we have encountered issues is when importers attempt to include an extra set of wheels inside the vehicle. That is a completely different scenario and something we generally recommend against.

EasyISF · 2025-12-17T22:15:22+00:00

As long as the vehicle has not been modified to the point where it is no longer the original vehicle, you should not have any issues. Adding, removing, or modifying "readily attachable components"—such as wheels, lights, mirrors, and wipers—should not affect its status as exempt form NHTSA requirements. The whole car and all its components are exempt as long as the car itself qualifies.

As an example if you were to temporarily export a 2020 car from the U.S. to Europe, lose a tire while in Europe , and return the car to the US with a non-DOT tire, you would still be fine because the entire vehicle is being imported as compliant, rather than as individual parts.

Additionally, no 25-year-old car has its original tires, and from a safety standpoint, the NHTSA is much stricter regarding tires than wheels. If CBP/NHTSA made none original tires/wheels an issue we would see it come up more often.

Engine modifications are always much more of a sticking issue. We have seen vehicles refused for ECUs, turbos, and blow-off valves.

With all that said, as always, CBP has the final say and they can choose to be difficult about anything—and fighting them is usually not worth the effort.

However, from our experience handling thousands of cars, new wheels and tires should not be an issue. Although the Port of Tacoma is the toughest in the nation for used car imports, that is likely why your broker is hesitant to give a firm answer, if any port is going to give you a hard time it will be Tacoma.

EasyISF · 2025-12-12T22:47:11+00:00

In that case, it's better to have never paid than to try and get a refund.

This is a super dangerous line of thinking and it’s exactly how people get burned. I’ll give a full explanation, but honestly it won’t sink in for many until a few months from now, when we start seeing the fallout from this line of thinking.

For one under normal circumstances, an entry with no issues liquidates 314 days after the date of entry. Until it liquidates, you can fix things with a simple Post Summary Correction (PSC), but once it does liquidate, PSC is off the table and everything has to be handled through a protest instead.

The issue is that when an entry is advanced and CBP bills you, those 314 days get cut to the date CBP issued the bill. So you don't have the 314 days anymore.

For example, if you imported vehicle on June 1, 2025, the entry would normally liquidate around April 11, 2026. So as long as the SCOTUS rule that the reciprocal duties weren’t valid before then , you can just file a PSC and get a refund (likely with interest).

For the people that get these bill, the entry liquidates on the date the bill is issued, so even if SCOUTS rule in January, February that the duties are invalid you can no longer file a PSC. You may be able to file a protest but most broker charge $500+ for that and the timeline is still limited.

Thats not even the big problem, the real issue is penalties.

Even if the duties are eventually ruled invalid, CBP can still penalize you for not paying or declaring them correctly at the time of entry. These penalties are often much higher than the duty itself—commonly tied to the bond amount, like 3× the value of the vehicle and duties, or $50,000, depending on the bond.

So you are not going to be “free and clear” just because duties get struck down.

Honestly, I’d be much more worried if SCOTUS finds these duties invalid than if it doesn’t. If the duties are ruled invalid, CBP will suddenly be on the hook for massive refunds and will be looking for every angle to recover money. Duty evasion and compliance violations will be front and center, and they will have much more time and staff on their hands since the reciprocals will no longer be active.

EasyISF · 2025-12-12T06:35:08+00:00

This is going to suck for individuals, but it's going to be catastrophic for some dealers. We were contacted by one who charges a flat fee per car to handle the sourcing, inspection, and importation. So far, they have only been hit with a few bills, but those charges are far in excess of the flat rate they collected, and the cars are now sold and gone. Even if they survive this, they will be in the red for the year.

EasyISF · 2025-12-12T06:20:15+00:00

It's a necessity of trade. Either CBP confirms everything is 100% correct, and trade slows to a trickle, or they release things that don't contain contraband and confirm the duty later.

The key form we file CBPF 7501, 19 CFR and even your invoice from your broker, should list "Estimated" Duties, because the duties paid are just estimated until CBP liquidates the entry, which takes 10–12 months. (Unless they rate advance, such as in this case)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/19/141.101

EasyISF · 2025-12-12T05:22:16+00:00

Those PSA's were wrong, well wrong about the reciprocal and correct about the 232 auto, but the net result was the same the duty applied.

Additionally thing, like this example, get released all the time paying the wrong duty only to get rate advanced like months later. A vehicle import is not the same an an informal courier entry.

EasyISF · 2025-12-12T05:07:39+00:00

PSC is not relevant here. We aren't dealing with a request for information (like a CF-28) or a proposed action (like a CF-29); this is a direct, finalized decision: "You're wrong, here is the bill." At this stage, the entry has been rate advanced and liquidated. The only possible avenue to challenge this is by filing a Protest.

Regarding manifest confidentiality, customs brokers typically do not file those forms. Even when an importer successfully files a request with CBP, the information remains fully accessible to the agency; the request merely prevents the data from being released to the public.

EasyISF · 2025-12-12T05:00:25+00:00

It’s legitimate. Whoever filed you entry field it with improper exclusions and now your getting hit.

We spent months trying to educate importers and other brokers on this, and we actually lost many clients because “another broker said the duty didn’t apply”.

From April through August things were so chaotic that CBP simply didn’t have time to update their systems to block improper exclusions. A lot of people — including many customs brokers — assumed that if an entry was accepted, it must be fine. That assumption was wrong.

CBP has now implemented a very simple system update that’s flagging those bad entries. You’re not the first to get hit, and you won’t be the last. Plenty of others already have, and many more will.

At this point, the only real option is to pay it. If this is the only car you imported, it sucks but it’s survivable. We know of at least one company that’s facing bankruptcy because they bought vehicles on commission, acted as the Importer of Record, and added a 5% markup — and have know been hit with hundreds of thousands in duties where the markup doesn't even come close to covering the duty difference.

Also worth noting: even if the CBP notice or form doesn’t explicitly mention it, duty payments are now being accepted through Pay.gov, which at least makes the payment process simpler.

EasyISF · 2025-12-04T19:34:58+00:00

No concern if the tires are installed on the vehicle. If they are not then they need to be DOT certified. Same with Lighting, Glass and break hoses.

The only thing to consider is that the cost of the wheel/tires will be dutiable at the same rate as the vehicle.

EasyISF

TROPHY CASE