The de minimis threshold under Section 321 of the Tariff Act allows shipments valued at $800 or less to enter the United States duty-free. It’s the provision that makes direct-from-China ecommerce work — every Shein package, Temu order, and AliExpress shipment under $800 enters the U.S. without going through formal customs entry or paying duties.
But during the IEEPA tariff period, the interaction between Section 321 and IEEPA duties became a subject of confusion, policy shifts, and inconsistent enforcement. Some small shipments that should have been exempt were charged duties. Some that were exempt probably shouldn’t have been. And the question now is: if IEEPA duties were collected on de minimis shipments, are those duties refundable?
The answer is mostly yes — but the details matter, and the practical challenges of recovering duties on small shipments are different from recovering on formal entries.
How Section 321 Works
Section 321 (19 U.S.C. Section 1321) provides that articles imported by one person on one day having an aggregate fair retail value of $800 or less may be admitted free of duty. This is commonly called the “de minimis exemption.”
Key points:
- Threshold: $800 per person, per day
- Scope: Applies to duties, including most tariff surcharges
- Entry type: Section 321 shipments enter through an informal entry process — typically no formal entry summary (CF 7501) is filed
- No ES-003 data: Because there’s no formal entry, Section 321 shipments don’t appear on the ES-003 report that’s the standard starting point for IEEPA recovery
Section 321 and IEEPA: The Policy Timeline
The interaction between Section 321 and IEEPA tariffs went through several phases:
Phase 1 (February 4 - April 2, 2025): De minimis exemption applied. When IEEPA tariffs first took effect, Section 321 shipments were generally exempt. Packages under $800 from China continued to enter duty-free.
Phase 2 (April 2 - May 2025): Executive Order narrowed the exemption. A subsequent executive order attempted to eliminate the Section 321 exemption for China-origin shipments specifically. This meant that even packages under $800 from China were potentially subject to IEEPA duties.
Phase 3 (May 2025 - February 2026): Inconsistent enforcement. CBP’s implementation of the narrowed exemption was uneven. Some ports collected duties on de minimis shipments; others continued to apply the exemption. Express carriers (FedEx, UPS, DHL) implemented varying policies. The result was a patchwork where identical shipments were treated differently depending on the port of entry and carrier.
Phase 4 (February 2026 onward): Post-ruling. The Supreme Court ruling struck down all IEEPA tariffs, including the executive order narrowing the Section 321 exemption. Any IEEPA duties collected on de minimis shipments were unconstitutional.
Who Was Affected?
The companies most affected by IEEPA duties on de minimis shipments fall into several categories:
Direct-to-Consumer Ecommerce Sellers
If you sell products that are shipped directly from Chinese factories to U.S. consumers in individual packages (the Shein/Temu model), your shipments may have been assessed IEEPA duties during Phase 2 and Phase 3. Whether they were actually assessed depends on your carrier and the port of entry.
Sample Shipments
Companies that import product samples from Chinese suppliers often use informal entry because the samples are valued under $800. During the IEEPA period, some of these shipments were charged IEEPA duties.
Small Batch Importers
Small businesses that import goods in small quantities — often via express mail or parcel post — may have had shipments charged IEEPA duties that would have been exempt under normal Section 321 treatment.
Consumers
Individual U.S. consumers who ordered products directly from Chinese websites or platforms may have been charged IEEPA duties on delivery. However, individual consumer claims are generally not practical to pursue due to the small amounts involved and the lack of formal entry documentation.
The Refund Question: Can You Recover IEEPA Duties on De Minimis Shipments?
Yes — if IEEPA duties were collected on shipments that would otherwise qualify for Section 321 treatment, those duties are refundable. The Supreme Court ruling invalidated all IEEPA tariffs, including the executive order that attempted to narrow the Section 321 exemption.
The challenge is practical, not legal. Recovering duties on de minimis shipments is harder than recovering on formal entries for several reasons.
Challenge 1: No Formal Entry, No ES-003 Data
Standard IEEPA recovery starts with the ES-003 report — a comprehensive listing of all entries and duties from the ACE system. But Section 321 shipments don’t have formal entries in ACE. There’s no entry summary, no CF 7501, and no line-item duty data to pull.
How to find the data: The duty collection records are held by the carrier (FedEx, UPS, DHL, or USPS) that processed the shipment. Some carriers collected IEEPA duties as “import fees” or “government charges” that were billed to the recipient. You’ll need to obtain records from the carrier showing:
- Which shipments were assessed IEEPA duties
- The duty amounts collected
- The dates of collection
- The CBP entry or collection reference number (if any)
Challenge 2: Small Dollar Amounts Per Shipment
A 20% IEEPA duty on a $400 shipment is $80. On a $200 shipment, it’s $40. The per-shipment amounts are small, making individual recovery impractical for most businesses unless they have hundreds or thousands of affected shipments.
When it’s worth pursuing: If you’re a volume ecommerce shipper with thousands of de minimis entries during the IEEPA period, the aggregate amount can be substantial. A company shipping 10,000 packages per month from China with an average value of $300 and a 20% IEEPA assessment would have $600,000 per month in affected shipments — yielding $120,000 per month in refundable duties. Over the 10-month enforcement period, that’s potentially $1.2 million.
When it’s probably not worth it: If you had a handful of sample shipments assessed small IEEPA charges, the administrative cost of recovery may exceed the refund amount.
Challenge 3: Who Is the Claimant?
For formal entries, the importer of record claims the refund. For Section 321 shipments, the “importer” is often the individual recipient — who may be your customer, not your company.
If your business model involves shipping directly from a Chinese facility to U.S. consumers, the consumer is the nominal importer. Claiming refunds on behalf of consumers requires either:
- Individual consumer claims (impractical at scale)
- A class action approach (being explored by some law firms)
- Carrier-level aggregated claims (the most likely mechanism)
If your business model involves importing small shipments to your own facility (samples, small production runs), you’re the importer and can claim directly.
Challenge 4: Carrier Cooperation
Express carriers collected IEEPA duties on behalf of CBP and remitted them to the government. To claim a refund, you need the carrier’s cooperation in providing documentation and potentially filing claims. Some carriers are proactively working with high-volume customers to facilitate refunds; others are waiting for CBP to provide guidance on the Section 321 refund mechanism.
Recovery Paths for De Minimis IEEPA Duties
The standard four recovery paths — PSC, protest, CIT litigation, and immediate capital — were designed for formal entries. De minimis shipments require a modified approach:
Path A: Carrier-Facilitated Refund
The most practical path for most businesses is to work through the carrier that collected the duties. Contact your carrier’s trade compliance or customs department and request:
- A report of all IEEPA duties collected on your shipments
- Confirmation of whether the carrier is filing refund claims with CBP
- A timeline for when refunds (if approved) will be passed through to you
Major carriers have dedicated teams handling IEEPA de minimis refunds. The process is slower than formal entry refunds because the infrastructure wasn’t designed for it, but it’s moving.
Path B: Direct Filing With CBP
If you can identify specific entries (even informal entries) where IEEPA duties were assessed, you may be able to file a protest or refund request directly with CBP. This requires:
- The entry number or collection reference
- Proof of duty payment
- The legal basis for the refund (Supreme Court ruling + the unconstitutional narrowing of Section 321)
This path works best for businesses with a manageable number of affected shipments and good record-keeping.
Path C: Aggregated Claim Through Legal Representation
For high-volume ecommerce companies with millions of dollars in affected de minimis shipments, an aggregated legal claim may be the most efficient approach. Several trade law firms are organizing class-level claims on behalf of companies affected by the Section 321 narrowing.
Path D: Write It Off
For businesses with very small aggregate amounts (under $5,000), the practical reality is that the administrative cost of recovery may exceed the refund. This isn’t ideal, but it’s the honest assessment for businesses with limited Section 321 exposure.
Formal Entries That Look Like De Minimis
Here’s an important distinction: some shipments that you might think of as “small” actually entered through formal entry rather than Section 321. If your customs broker filed a formal entry on a low-value shipment (perhaps because it was consolidated with other goods, or because the broker routinely files formal entries regardless of value), that entry is in ACE, has an ES-003 record, and follows the standard IEEPA recovery process.
Check with your broker to confirm whether your small shipments entered informally (Section 321) or formally. The recovery process is dramatically different.
The Broader Section 321 Policy Question
The IEEPA tariff’s interaction with Section 321 highlighted a policy tension that will likely persist beyond this specific tariff dispute. The de minimis exemption was designed for an era of modest cross-border commerce, not for a world where billions of dollars in goods enter the U.S. through $400 packages.
The attempt to narrow Section 321 for China-origin goods during the IEEPA period was struck down as part of the broader IEEPA ruling — but Congress or future administrations may revisit the de minimis threshold independently of IEEPA. If you rely heavily on Section 321 for your import model, this is a structural risk worth monitoring regardless of the current refund situation.
What High-Volume Shippers Should Do Now
If your business shipped thousands of de minimis packages from China during the IEEPA enforcement period, here’s your action plan:
1. Quantify the exposure. Pull shipping records from your carrier(s) and calculate the total IEEPA duties collected. Even an estimate based on average shipment values and volumes gives you a starting number.
2. Contact your carrier. Ask about their IEEPA de minimis refund process. Each carrier is handling this differently — get specific answers about timelines, documentation requirements, and whether they’re filing aggregated claims.
3. Separate formal entries from Section 321. If some of your shipments entered through formal customs entry (check with your broker), those follow the standard IEEPA recovery path and should be included in your Impact Assessment.
4. Evaluate legal representation. For aggregate claims above $100,000, legal representation may be worthwhile. Trade attorneys specializing in customs refunds can navigate the Section 321 refund process more efficiently than carriers alone.
5. Document everything. Carrier invoices showing IEEPA duty charges, shipping manifests, proof of payment — collect it all now while records are fresh. The refund process may take months, and you’ll need clean documentation when it moves.
The Marketplace Platform Question
Large marketplace platforms — Shein, Temu, AliExpress, and others — facilitated billions of dollars in de minimis shipments from China during the IEEPA period. These platforms typically act as intermediaries, connecting Chinese sellers with U.S. buyers. The question of who claims the IEEPA refund depends on the platform’s structure:
Marketplace model (platform is not the seller): The Chinese seller or their logistics agent is typically the IOR. The U.S. consumer is the importer in name only. Refund claims belong to whoever CBP recognizes as the party that paid the duty.
Direct-sale model (platform sells directly): If the platform itself is the IOR (as is the case with some Shein and Temu operations), the platform holds the refund rights. Individual consumers don’t have standing to claim refunds on entries filed under the platform’s IOR.
Hybrid models: Some platforms use a mix — direct sales on some items and marketplace facilitation on others. The IOR varies by transaction.
For U.S. businesses that use these platforms for sourcing (buying products from Temu or AliExpress for resale, for example), the de minimis question intersects with the IOR question. If you purchased products through a marketplace platform and they shipped direct to you in packages under $800, you likely were not the IOR — the platform or its logistics partner was.
What Platforms Are Doing
As of early 2026, the major platforms have taken different approaches:
- Some are proactively filing refund claims on behalf of their operations and plan to pass savings to sellers or buyers through reduced fees
- Others are waiting for CBP guidance before taking action
- Most have not communicated a clear position to their users
If you rely on marketplace platforms for sourcing and believe IEEPA duties were charged on your shipments, contact the platform’s seller support team directly. Ask whether they’re filing refund claims and whether any recovery will be passed through to you.
Impact on Future De Minimis Policy
The IEEPA experience with Section 321 has accelerated a policy conversation that was already underway: should the $800 de minimis threshold be lowered or eliminated for certain countries? Multiple bills have been introduced in Congress to address de minimis — including proposals to reduce the threshold to $200 or eliminate it entirely for China-origin shipments.
While these policy changes are separate from the IEEPA refund question, importers who rely heavily on de minimis entry should monitor these developments. A permanent change to Section 321 would have a much larger impact on your business model than the temporary IEEPA disruption.
For now, the focus should be on recovering any IEEPA duties that were collected on your de minimis shipments — and ensuring your formal entries (if any) are also being processed through the standard recovery paths.
The ecommerce and DTC importer guide covers additional considerations for online sellers, and the complete guide to IEEPA tariff refunds provides the broader framework for all recovery paths.
Get your free Impact Assessment →
If you have formal entries that carried IEEPA duties — even small ones — those are recoverable through the standard process. For Section 321 shipments, the path is different but the right is the same: unconstitutionally collected duties will be returned. Start documenting your exposure now, and reach out for an assessment of your full IEEPA recovery potential including both formal and informal entries.
