Beyond the Supreme Court: Why Costco’s Legal Gambit is the New Blueprint for 2026

In 1773, a tax on tea ignited a revolution. Today, the tectonic plates of U.S. trade policy are shifting with similar intensity, leaving importers in a state of perpetual regulatory volatility. Navigating current tariff mandates has become a “fluid situation” where the rules of engagement change as rapidly as a market update. To decode this friction, experts from CargoTrans — including co-CEO Nunzio Dalipus and Director of Trade Compliance Renie Olen — analyzed how sophisticated importers must transition from a reactive posture to a robust compliance offense.

The stakes have never been higher. Supply chain risk management in 2026 is inseparable from trade compliance risk management. The two disciplines have merged — and importers who treat customs compliance as a back-office function rather than a strategic priority are accumulating liability with every entry they file.

The “Costco Strategy”: Why Waiting for the Supreme Court Is a Risk

While the broader trade community fixates on the Supreme Court’s skepticism regarding IEEPA/EPA tariffs, Costco has adopted an aggressive litigation posture. The retail giant filed an independent suit in the Court of International Trade (CIT), joining Revlon, Bumblebee Foods, and over 2,000 other early-moving importers who recognized that waiting is not a neutral position — it is a choice with real financial consequences.

What Independent CIT Filing Means for Importers

For C-suite decision makers, the Costco approach delivers a clear operational lesson: passive strategies cede control. By filing independently in the CIT rather than waiting for a class action or a Supreme Court ruling, Costco is effectively writing its own script. The specific advantages of independent filing include:

• Control over timeline: Independent filers are not subject to the administrative backlogs that will accompany a general ruling
• Protection of the refund window: The 180-day protest window following liquidation is non-negotiable — missing it permanently extinguishes any refund claim, regardless of what courts ultimately decide
• Avoidance of liquidation cycle risk: Early filers can bypass potential deferrals of Post Summary Corrections (PSC) and protest refunds that will likely bottleneck once a ruling is issued

“I believe Costco said they wanted to write their own script… they wanted to use the justification and go after and again control their own destiny as opposed to any potential backlog in the process of possible deferment of post summary corrections or protest refunds.” — Renie Olen, Director of Trade Compliance, CargoTrans

The practical implication: monitor your entry liquidation status in ACE using reports ES003, ES5, or 010. Every entry that liquidates without an active protest or PSC on file is a potential refund claim that is permanently lost. This is not a theoretical risk — it is happening right now, for every importer who is waiting.

The Refund Reality Check: Fast Collection, Slow Return

There is a dangerous assumption embedded in many importers’ current posture: that a favorable legal ruling will result in an immediate, automatic refund of overpaid duties. Historical precedent demolishes this assumption.

Why the GSP Precedent Matters

The Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) experience is the most instructive parallel available. Unlike GSP — which was proactively flagged at the time of entry — current EPA tariffs lack an automatic refund mechanism. What happened with GSP refunds provides a preview of what importers can expect:

• Refund processing was manual and high-friction, requiring individual entry-level review and documentation
• Processing timelines stretched for months, in some cases years, after the legal determination was made
• Importers who had not maintained meticulous transaction records faced significant difficulty substantiating their claims
• Brokers and importers who had not synchronized on liquidation timelines missed refund windows entirely

Your mitigation architecture must anticipate this environment and be built now — not after a ruling is announced. The three proactive steps every importer should be taking today:

1. Audit-Ready Transaction Records: Maintain meticulous digital trails of every duty payment made since April 2025, organized by entry number, HTS classification, and tariff chapter
2. Precision ACE Reporting: Conduct rigorous internal reviews of ACE data to eliminate discrepancies before they become liabilities — errors that seem minor now will become obstacles to refund claims later
3. Broker Alignment on Liquidation: Synchronize with your customs broker on Post Summary Correction and Protest timelines — all entries liquidated in the last six months must be accounted for and evaluated for protest eligibility

Our trade advisory services include a structured liquidation review process that ensures no refund-eligible entry falls through the cracks during this critical window.

AI and the New “Trade Fraud Task Force”

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has effectively ended the grace period for trade errors. Enforcement has entered the realm of criminalization, and the scale of CBP’s enforcement capability has expanded dramatically through AI integration.

The Scale of Current Enforcement Activity

The numbers are significant and should inform every importer’s compliance posture:

• Reporting of fraud and tariff evasion complaints surged 160% in the enforcement period beginning 2025
• Over $400 million in unpaid duties were recovered in the first eight months of 2025 alone
• CBP is deploying AI to detect valuation and classification variances with surgical precision — patterns that would have taken months to identify manually are now flagged in real time
• The Department of Justice joined forces with CBP in August 2025 to form the “Trade Fraud Task Force” — AI-generated red flags now go directly to federal prosecutors, not just compliance officers

“In 1993 they issued the MOD Act, they gave a 4-year grace period… but that’s not the case here. Trade enforcement followed a lot sooner than a 4-year grace period.” — Renie Olen

The implications for importers who have made classification, valuation, or origin adjustments since April 2025 — even adjustments made in good faith based on common industry practice — are direct. Every data point in your entry filings is now subject to algorithmic scrutiny. The standard of proof required to defend your compliance decisions has risen accordingly.

The “Follow the Leader” Trap in Compliance

During the initial tariff shocks of 2025, many importers engaged in knee-jerk reactions — abruptly shifting countries of origin or unbundling valuations to preserve margins, sometimes without the documentation infrastructure to support these changes. The justification that “everyone else is doing it” has become one of the most dangerous phrases in trade compliance.

Why Industry-Standard Defense Fails Under AI Enforcement

CBP treats intentional shifts in trade data without a documented compliance defense as a red flag for evasion. In an audit context, the response “industry standard practice” signals a lack of reasonable care. The specific risks include:

• Country of origin reclassification without documented substantial transformation analysis creates exposure to fraud allegations
• Valuation unbundling without a clear, defensible methodology based on accounting standards creates liability for undervaluation penalties
• HTS classification shifts made solely to reduce duty exposure — without binding ruling support or written legal analysis — are exactly what the Trade Fraud Task Force’s AI models are trained to detect

Every classification and origin determination must be supported by internal logic, transparent mapping, and contemporaneous documentation — not reactionary imitation of what competitors are doing.

The Section 301 tariffs enforcement history provides a clear preview: companies that made aggressive classification changes without documentation faced significant penalties even when the underlying positions were arguably defensible. Documented reasonable care is what protects you — not the fact that others made the same decision.

First Sale for Export: The Most Impactful Duty Mitigation Strategy

First Sale for Export has moved from a niche tactic to a primary pillar of duty mitigation for sophisticated importers. This “triangle transaction” — Factory to Middleman to U.S. Buyer — allows the importer to declare the value of the first sale (factory to middleman) as the customs value, significantly lowering the entered value and reducing duty exposure across every import entry.

Structuring New Sourcing Relationships for First Sale

This is not just for legacy sourcing relationships. Sophisticated importers are now structuring new sourcing platforms specifically to accommodate First Sale — engineering the arrangement from day one so that the transaction qualifies. The duty savings on high-volume import programs can be substantial, particularly given current tariff levels on goods subject to Section 232 tariffs and other elevated duty schedules.

For this strategy to be audit-proof, the transaction must represent a bona fide sale with verifiable transfer of ownership and arm’s-length pricing. The requirements for a First Sale feasibility review include four elements:

1. Quantification: A formal review to quantify the relationship between the parties and calculate the duty savings potential across your actual import volumes
2. Financial Proof: Documented proof of payment for both legs of the triangle transaction, demonstrating that two separate commercial transactions occurred
3. Destination Certainty: Evidence that goods were clearly destined for the U.S. at the point of the first sale — a requirement that must be built into the sourcing documentation from the beginning
4. Position Statement: A written document demonstrating “Reasonable Care” to CBP, prepared by trade counsel or a qualified compliance professional

The 2026 Mandate: From Defense to Offense

The core message for 2026 is unambiguous: trade compliance has matured into a top-tier financial risk. Relying on passive electronic files, broker-managed entries, or “the way we’ve always done it” is no longer a viable compliance defense in an environment where AI enforcement is operational and the Department of Justice is directly involved in trade fraud prosecution.

What a Compliance Offense Looks Like in Practice

Senior management must mandate the following structural changes to build a defensible compliance posture:

• U.S.-driven Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for every customs-facing process — origin determination, valuation methodology, HTS classification review — documented in writing and signed off at the appropriate management level
• Comprehensive written compliance manuals — active, living documents that reflect current regulations and are updated as laws change, not static files created for a prior audit cycle
• Explicit instructions to brokers and sourcing agents derived from these SOPs, so that every external party handling your entries is operating from your documented compliance framework

The Control Tower platform provides real-time updates, alerts, and historical data on duty changes — giving your compliance team the intelligence needed to defend every entry before CBP asks the question. Paired with our tariff calculator, it delivers the tools needed to model duty exposure across your entire import program and identify the highest-value mitigation opportunities.

Frequently Asked Questions