2026-06-05
Importers of wine and spirits in the United States are moving to recover tariff payments after a Supreme Court ruling found a broad set of Trump administration duties unlawful, but the refund process is opening a new dispute across the beverage business over who should keep the money.
The case affects tariffs imposed in April 2025 under emergency powers. Those measures set a 10% duty on imports from the United Kingdom and a 15% duty on goods from the European Union, including wine and spirits. On Feb. 20, the Supreme Court ruled that many of those tariffs were illegal. Four days later, importers were allowed to stop paying them, and the Court of International Trade was left to oversee what could become a refund process worth as much as $166 billion. Industry estimates cited in trade reporting suggest just under 10% of that total involves wine and spirits companies.
Since May 11, U.S. Customs has been electronically processing claims through a digital filing system that lets importers and customs brokers submit refund requests in bulk. Early demand was heavy. Filing volume rose from about 55,000 claims in the opening days to roughly 85,000 by the end of the first week, according to figures cited by industry participants.
For importers, the legal question may be settled for now, but the commercial question is not. Tariffs were paid at the border by importers, which makes them the official parties entitled to receive refunds from Customs. But in practice, many companies across the supply chain shared the cost in different ways while the duties were in force. Some foreign suppliers lowered prices. Some importers absorbed part of the hit. Some distributors and retailers accepted tighter margins. Others used credits, discounts or delayed payment terms to keep products moving.
That patchwork now matters because many of those arrangements were made quickly and without contract language covering what would happen if the tariffs were later struck down. As a result, companies are trying to determine whether refunds belong with the importer that filed the entry, with the supplier that helped cover the duty, or with another business that took losses further down the chain.
Alison Leavitt, managing director of the Wine and Spirits Shippers Association, said the mechanics of filing claims are simpler than deciding who ultimately bore the cost. In comments reported by The Spirits Business, she described a scramble among companies trying to sort through deals that were made under pressure and handled differently from one supplier relationship to another.
The issue is especially sensitive in alcohol because pricing moves through a three-tier system of suppliers, distributors and retailers before reaching consumers. That structure can make it difficult to trace exactly how much of a tariff was passed along at each stage. If an importer raised prices only partly, while a supplier issued credits and a distributor accepted lower margins, there may be no clear answer about who should benefit when Customs sends money back.
Large global drinks groups may have fewer problems resolving those questions internally because they control more parts of their own supply chains. Smaller importers and independent distributors face harder negotiations. Many do not have the leverage or legal resources of multinational companies, and some say they already cut staff or reduced operations while tariffs were in place.
The uncertainty is growing because the original tariffs did not simply disappear without replacement. After the Supreme Court ruling, President Donald Trump introduced a new tariff regime under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That system took effect on Feb. 24 and set a universal rate of 10%. Those tariffs are also being challenged in court. In at least one case, the Court of International Trade has already ruled them illegal, raising the possibility that businesses could face another round of refunds later, potentially with interest.
That sequence has left importers in an unusual position: receiving money back for one set of duties while continuing to pay another set that may also be overturned. For wine and spirits companies already dealing with weak consumer demand in some categories, higher financing costs and uneven restaurant traffic, that legal instability adds another layer of risk.
The stakes are not limited to corporate accounting. Tariffs imposed on imported Scotch whisky, Irish whiskey, Cognac, Champagne and European wines affected shelf prices across parts of the U.S. market over the past year. Whether any refund money eventually lowers prices for consumers remains doubtful. Industry executives say direct consumer reimbursement would be difficult because tariff costs were blended into wholesale and retail pricing decisions over time rather than charged as separate line items.
There has been some discussion in legal and policy circles about whether consumers could seek relief through class-action litigation or state rebate programs if courts continue to strike down tariffs. But tracing who paid what through multiple commercial layers would be difficult. For now, most people in the trade expect refunds to remain inside the supply chain rather than flow back directly to shoppers.
Trade groups are also watching how Washington handles future alcohol policy with Europe and Britain. Before these disputes, spirits producers on both sides of the Atlantic had pushed for reciprocal duty-free treatment, arguing that open trade supported exports of American whiskey as well as Scotch and other imported products sold in the United States. Many executives still see that framework as the long-term goal even if current policy remains unsettled.
At the same time, some industry representatives say the administration has argued that tariffs are part of a broader effort to reduce trade imbalances and negotiate better access for U.S. exports abroad. Supporters of that approach point to talks with countries including Argentina, Cambodia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Indonesia and Ecuador over lowering barriers on American spirits.
For now, however, wine and spirits companies are focused less on long-term trade theory than on immediate cash flow and liability. Refunds are beginning to move through Customs’ system, but each payment may trigger fresh negotiations between importers, suppliers and distributors over who absorbed losses when tariffs first hit. In an industry built on long contracts, thin margins for many operators and tightly regulated distribution channels, recovering unlawful duties may prove easier than agreeing on who deserves them.