Changing customs brokers is never simple. Doing it during the IEEPA tariff period — and then trying to recover duties from entries filed by both brokers — adds a layer of complexity that most importers don’t anticipate until they’re in the middle of the recovery process. If you switched customs brokers between February 2025 and February 2026, your IEEPA data is split across two systems, two sets of records, and potentially two different approaches to filing.
This isn’t a niche situation. We see it regularly. Companies switch brokers for lots of reasons — service issues, pricing, a new logistics partner that bundles brokerage, a broker that wasn’t handling tariff compliance well (ironically, sometimes because of IEEPA itself). Whatever the reason, the switch creates a data fragmentation problem that needs to be solved before you can file for recovery.
Here’s how one importer — we’ll call them Summit Distribution — navigated the split-broker situation and recovered $870,000 in IEEPA duties that were scattered across two brokerage relationships.
Why the Broker Switch Creates Problems
When you use a customs broker, they file entry summaries on your behalf through the ACE (Automated Commercial Environment) system. The broker maintains records of every entry they’ve filed, including the ES-003 data that shows duty amounts, HTS classifications, and liquidation status.
When you switch brokers, the new broker starts fresh. They file new entries going forward, but they don’t inherit the old broker’s records. The old broker retains the data for entries they filed — and they’re required to maintain those records under customs regulations — but they have no obligation to make that data easily accessible once you’ve moved your business elsewhere.
The specific problems this creates for IEEPA recovery:
Fragmented ES-003 data. Your ES-003 report needs to cover the entire IEEPA period (February 4, 2025 through February 24, 2026). If you switched brokers in July 2025, you need ES-003 data from both brokers to get a complete picture.
Different filing formats. Brokers organize entry data differently. Field names, date formats, and reference number conventions may not match between the two data sets. Merging the data requires normalization — which takes time and introduces error risk.
Reduced cooperation from the former broker. You left them. They may not be motivated to prioritize your data requests. Some brokers are professional and responsive; others drag their feet or charge fees for historical data retrieval.
PSC filing authority. Only the broker who filed the original entry can file a Post-Summary Correction on that entry. Your new broker cannot file PSCs on entries they didn’t file. This means your former broker needs to file PSCs on their entries — even though you’re no longer their client.
Protest filing authority. Protests can be filed by any authorized agent, so your new broker can file protests on entries originally filed by the old broker — but they need the entry data from the old broker to do it.
Summit Distribution’s Situation
Summit Distribution imports industrial components — valves, fittings, and fasteners — primarily from China. Their annual import volume is about $5 million in customs value, with approximately 320 entries filed during the IEEPA period.
Summit switched from Broker Alpha to Broker Beta in August 2025. The switch was driven by service issues — Broker Alpha had been slow to respond to classification questions and had missed a deadline on a prior refund claim.
The result was a split portfolio:
| Period | Broker | Entries | IEEPA Duties |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 2025 – Jul 2025 | Broker Alpha | 148 | $390,000 |
| Aug 2025 – Feb 2026 | Broker Beta | 172 | $480,000 |
| Total | — | 320 | $870,000 |
Summit’s trade compliance manager assumed the recovery would be straightforward — just have each broker file on their respective entries. It turned out to be significantly more complicated.
Challenge 1: Getting Data From the Former Broker
Summit’s first step was requesting ES-003 data from both brokers. Broker Beta (the current broker) produced the data within two business days. Broker Alpha took three weeks.
The delay from Broker Alpha wasn’t malicious — they simply deprioritized the request. Summit was a former client, and Broker Alpha’s team had moved on to other accounts. The data request sat in their queue behind active client work.
How Summit resolved it: Summit’s trade compliance manager escalated the request in writing, citing CBP regulations that require brokers to maintain and provide access to entry records. She also reminded Broker Alpha that they would need to file the PSCs on their entries — creating an ongoing revenue opportunity for them. That reframing — from “data request from a former client” to “business opportunity” — accelerated the response.
What you should do: Contact your former broker now, before you need the data urgently. Be polite, be specific about what you need (ES-003 data for all entries filed under your IOR number during the IEEPA period), and set a clear deadline. If they’re slow to respond, a written reminder referencing their regulatory obligations to maintain records usually helps.
The Data Normalization Problem
When Summit finally received data from both brokers, the formats didn’t match. Broker Alpha provided data in a CSV with 14 columns. Broker Beta’s report had 22 columns with different field names. The entry number formats were different (one included dashes, the other didn’t), and the date formats were inconsistent (MM/DD/YYYY vs. YYYY-MM-DD).
Summit’s trade compliance manager spent two days normalizing the data into a single master spreadsheet. This step is critical — without unified data, you can’t assess your full portfolio, identify deadline risks, or make informed decisions about recovery paths.
Challenge 2: Who Files What?
This is where the split-broker situation gets procedurally complicated.
Post-Summary Corrections
For unliquidated entries, the recovery path is a Post-Summary Correction filed through ACE. Only the broker of record — the broker who filed the original entry — can file a PSC on that entry. Your new broker cannot file PSCs on entries filed by your old broker.
Summit’s portfolio breakdown by liquidation status:
| Broker | Unliquidated | Liquidated |
|---|---|---|
| Alpha (Feb–Jul 2025) | 41 entries ($108K) | 107 entries ($282K) |
| Beta (Aug 2025–Feb 2026) | 152 entries ($424K) | 20 entries ($56K) |
The 41 unliquidated entries from Broker Alpha required Alpha to file the PSCs. Summit had to re-engage Broker Alpha as their filing agent for those specific entries. This required a new limited power of attorney authorizing Alpha to act on those entries — even though Alpha was no longer Summit’s primary broker.
Broker Alpha agreed to file the PSCs but charged a per-entry fee of $75 — higher than their standard rate during the active relationship. Summit weighed the cost ($3,075 for 41 entries) against the $108,000 in refundable duties and decided it was a straightforward trade.
Protests
For liquidated entries, formal protests under 19 U.S.C. Section 1514 can be filed by any authorized agent — not just the original broker of record. This meant Broker Beta could file protests on entries originally filed by Broker Alpha, as long as they had the entry data.
Summit chose to have Broker Beta handle all protest filings (both Alpha-originated and Beta-originated entries) for consistency and because they had more confidence in Beta’s attention to detail. This required Broker Beta to have the complete entry data from Alpha’s files — another reason why the data request from the former broker was essential.
The Filing Matrix
| Entry Type | Broker Alpha Entries | Broker Beta Entries |
|---|---|---|
| PSC (unliquidated) | Filed by Alpha (41 entries) | Filed by Beta (152 entries) |
| Protest (liquidated, open window) | Filed by Beta (97 entries) | Filed by Beta (20 entries) |
| Protest (approaching deadline) | Filed by Beta (10 entries) | Filed by Beta (0 entries) |
Notice the deadline risk: The 10 entries approaching their 180-day protest deadline were all from Broker Alpha’s period — the earliest IEEPA entries, filed in February and March 2025, which had liquidated in late 2025. These were the entries most at risk of falling through the cracks, because they were filed by a broker Summit no longer worked with. If Summit hadn’t proactively pulled Alpha’s data, these entries might have passed their deadline unnoticed.
Challenge 3: Reconciling Discrepancies Between Brokers
When Summit merged the data from both brokers, they discovered 14 entries where the IEEPA tariff rate didn’t match what they expected. Eight entries from Broker Alpha showed a 20% IEEPA rate where Summit expected 34% (or vice versa), and six entries from Broker Beta had small duty amount discrepancies.
The root cause: Broker Alpha had used different HTS classifications on some products than Broker Beta used for the same products after the switch. When Summit started working with Beta, Beta reclassified certain items based on their own analysis — which is normal, as classification often involves judgment calls. But the different classifications led to different IEEPA rates being applied.
This didn’t affect the recovery amount (the refund is based on the IEEPA duties actually paid, regardless of whether the classification was optimal), but it did complicate the data validation process. Summit’s Impact Assessment flagged these discrepancies and confirmed that the refund claims were valid despite the classification differences.
Lesson: Classification discrepancies between brokers are common and don’t typically block recovery. But they do need to be documented and explained, especially if CAPE processing triggers automated validation checks.
Challenge 4: Communication and Coordination Overhead
The most underestimated cost of the split-broker recovery is coordination time. Summit’s trade compliance manager spent approximately 40 hours over six weeks managing the process — calling Broker Alpha for data, coordinating with Broker Beta on filings, resolving discrepancies, and tracking deadlines across both portfolios.
For a company with a dedicated trade compliance function, this is manageable. For a smaller importer where the owner or CFO is handling this alongside everything else, the overhead can be overwhelming. This is one situation where having an advisory partner coordinate the process across both brokers can save significant time and reduce error risk.
Summit’s Recovery Timeline
| Milestone | Timing |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court ruling | Feb 20, 2026 |
| Data request to Broker Alpha | Mar 1, 2026 |
| Data received from Broker Beta | Mar 3, 2026 |
| Data received from Broker Alpha | Mar 21, 2026 |
| Data normalized and assessed | Mar 28, 2026 |
| Deadline-sensitive protests filed (10 entries) | Apr 2, 2026 |
| PSCs filed by Broker Alpha (41 entries) | Apr 8, 2026 |
| PSCs filed by Broker Beta (152 entries) | Apr 10, 2026 |
| Remaining protests filed (117 entries) | Apr 15, 2026 |
| First PSC refunds received | Late May 2026 |
Total elapsed time from start to first refund: approximately 12 weeks — about 4 weeks longer than an importer with a single broker would typically experience. The three-week delay in getting data from Broker Alpha accounted for most of the difference.
Financial Outcome
Summit’s projected recovery across all paths:
| Path | Entries | Amount | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| PSC (Alpha) | 41 | $108,000 | Filed, processing |
| PSC (Beta) | 152 | $424,000 | Filed, processing |
| Protest (all, via Beta) | 127 | $338,000 | Filed, awaiting CAPE |
| Total | 320 | $870,000 | — |
After deducting Broker Alpha’s $3,075 filing fee, Summit’s net recovery will be approximately $866,925 — a 99.6% recovery rate on total IEEPA duties paid.
When the Former Broker Is Unresponsive
Not every former broker will cooperate promptly. Some importers report weeks-long delays in getting data from brokers they’ve left. If you’re facing this situation, here are escalation options:
Written demand with regulatory citation. Send a formal written request citing 19 CFR Part 111, which governs customs broker conduct. Brokers are required to maintain records and make them available. A written demand creates a paper trail that can be referenced if further escalation is needed.
Contact the broker’s district director. CBP’s district directors oversee customs broker licensing in their jurisdictions. If a broker is refusing to provide data, a complaint to the district director can prompt action.
File a complaint with CBP. Brokers who fail to maintain or provide records can face license action from CBP. This is a last resort, but the threat of a regulatory complaint often motivates cooperation.
Use your power of attorney. If you still have a power of attorney on file with the former broker, you may be able to access ACE data through that authorization. Check with your current broker about whether the POA provides a data access pathway.
Engage a trade attorney. For large claims where the former broker’s data is the bottleneck, a letter from a trade attorney requesting records under regulatory authority can expedite the response.
In Summit’s case, a polite but firm written request — combined with the reminder that PSC filings created an ongoing business opportunity for the former broker — was sufficient. But importers with less cooperative former brokers should be prepared to escalate.
Practical Advice for Importers Who Switched Brokers
If you changed customs brokers during the IEEPA period, here’s your action plan:
Contact your former broker immediately. Request ES-003 data for all entries filed under your IOR during the IEEPA period. Do this now, even if you haven’t started the recovery process yet. Data requests take time, and you don’t want the delay on your critical path.
Check for unliquidated entries from the old broker. If any entries filed by your former broker are still unliquidated, you’ll need the former broker to file PSCs. Reach out to discuss terms — they may charge a fee, but it’s a small cost relative to the refund.
Have your current broker handle all protests. Since any authorized agent can file protests, consolidate protest filings with your current broker for consistency and easier coordination.
Identify deadline-sensitive entries from the old broker’s period. The earliest IEEPA entries — filed in February through May 2025 — are the most likely to have liquidated and be approaching their 180-day protest deadline. These are also the entries most likely to be overlooked because they’re in the old broker’s files.
Budget extra time. A split-broker recovery typically takes 3-5 weeks longer than a single-broker recovery due to data retrieval delays and coordination overhead.
Consider auditing both brokers’ work. The broker switch is a natural point where classification inconsistencies may exist. Catch them during your recovery process rather than having CAPE flag them later.
Get your free Impact Assessment →
The split-broker situation adds complexity but doesn’t reduce your recovery. Every dollar of IEEPA duty paid by either broker is refundable under the Supreme Court ruling. The key is getting complete data from both brokers early enough to meet deadlines and secure a strong CAPE queue position. Start with your former broker — that’s where the data gap is, and that’s where the timeline risk lives.
