Search Results

The $165 Billion Question: Navigating the New Tariff Refund Landscape Michelle Schulz Discusses the Biden Administration's Recent Stance on U.S. Importer Refunds Overview Following the implementation of an automated refund system for U.S. importers, a complex political dynamic has emerged. While $165 billion in tariff refunds is legally owed to businesses, reports suggest the administration is pressuring firms to forgo these claims. Michelle Schulz, founder of Schulz Trade Law, joined WTMJ Radio to break down what this means for the trade community. April 28, 2026 Wisconsin's Afternoon News WTMJ Radio, Milwaukee Reporter: Julia Fello A System Built for Speed The U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection has recently streamlined its processes to handle an unprecedented volume of tariff repayments. Through the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), a new sub-system known as CAPE (Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entry) was designed to return funds to importers of record within a 60-to-90-day window. "It’s been interesting that the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection has actually built a system to repay businesses so quickly... they’ve developed an automatic system for refunds that is supposed to return the money to the importer of record within 60 to 90 days." — MICHELLE SCHULZ Political Pressure vs. Legal Entitlement Despite the legal framework entitling companies to these refunds, a new narrative is forming from Washington. Major news outlets report that the administration is discouraging firms from claiming their money, citing various political and economic justifications. "It sounds like now the President has responded by saying, 'You're entitled to those refunds, but if you don't take them, I will remember you.' And so, you get brownie points if you just don't take your money back." — MICHELLE SCHULZ The Economic Reality for Importers For many businesses, these refunds are not just bonuses but significant capital owed for overpaid duties. Choosing to forgo these funds to remain in the administration's "good graces" presents a difficult dilemma for corporate leadership. "To ask companies to just go ahead and not claim the money that they’re duly owed—it’s kind of like asking people not to claim their tax refund." — MICHELLE SCHULZ Is Your Business Owed Tariff Refunds? Navigating the intersection of trade law and federal policy requires expert guidance. Don't leave your capital on the table without understanding the full legal landscape. Contact Schulz Trade Law Today Trade on, but trade informed! Subscribe to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.

Strategic Partnership Article War in the Middle East Time to Review Your Company’s Force Majeure Clauses Guest Article by S. George Alfonso, The Law Offices of S. George Alfonso, PLLC. Presented with permission by the firm’s strategic partner Schulz Trade Law, PLLC. April 28, 2026 Download this Article Disclaimer: This article is strictly limited to the legal analysis of force majeure provisions and is not intended as a political statement. Our goal is solely to provide practical guidance to help businesses maintain operations and review their specific contract clauses. Summary This article outlines key issues facing U.S. and international businesses arising from the Israeli/U.S. war against Iran and its regional proxies, which has expanded into a broader Gulf (if not global) conflict. It also highlights the potential relief available through the invocation of contractual force majeure clauses in contracts, when and if possible. Evaluate your options for invoking force majeure and develop a strategy. Schulz Trade Law offers a library of Trade Law Resources. Download this article The Iran War Effects Far More than the Energy Supply Chain The Israeli/U.S. launch of “Operation Epic Fury” on February 28th initially concentrated risk on the Strait of Hormuz and the global energy supply chain related to that narrow channel of water. Iran’s rapid response - via drone and missile attacks—effectively shut down the Strait by triggering the withdrawal of insurance coverage for tankers who were seeking ingress or egress from through the Strait. This disruption amounts to a de facto embargo on over 20% of the world’s oil resources. However, the consequences extend far beyond fuel markets as petroleum is essential to manufacturing an almost innumerable amount of products, including plastics, textiles, cosmetics, and construction materials, with diesel fuel being essential for global logistics. As a result, the interruption of this supply chain has already and will continue to render performance by parties under countless commercial contracts as impracticable to even impossible around the world. Force Majeure Clause A Force majeure clause (often referred to as an “Act of God” clause) is (or at least should be) standard in all commercial contracts (U.S. and international), as this clause may provide for the delay or excuse of performance by a party for at least an amount of time (if not completely release the party from contractual obligations and compliance), when extraordinary events beyond a party’s control occur. These typically include both natural and human-made disruptions. To successfully invoke such a clause, the triggering event must make contractual performance impracticable, impossible, or illegal—at least temporarily. Depending on the contract’s terms, prolonged disruption may excuse performance in whole or in part. Acts of Nature: Natural events like hurricanes, tsunamis, tidal waves or pandemics. Acts of Man: Human-made events such as war, terrorist attacks, strikes, or tariffs. Key Limitations and Risks Regarding Force Majeure Clause As with all contractual issues or questions - when in doubt, read the directions. The specific Force Majeure language in a commercial contract will control in every instance, which is why it is critical to ensure that this language is concise, well drafted and clear, without ambiguities or inconsistencies. Common issues found in Force Majeure Clauses include: Notice Requirements: Most Force Majeure Clauses will require the party to specifically cite and to some degree timely identify the triggering event(s) which rendered contractual compliance to be impracticable, impossible, or illegal at that time. Some Force Majeure clauses impose a strict “use-it-or-lose-it” notice provisions requiring timely written notification after a triggering event. Failure to comply may waive the right to invoke the clause. Scope of Covered Events: The triggering event must either be explicitly listed or fall within a valid catch-all provision. Ambiguity increases the risk of dispute. Immediate Steps to Undertake After two months of sustained conflict in the Gulf, businesses should take undertake the following proactive steps in order to better prepare for potential disruptions and minimize the financial risks associated with this unpredictable regional conflict. Review Existing Commercial Contracts for Force Majeure Clause (If Any): Confirm whether or not there is a Force Majeure Clause in each commercial contract and assess whether current conditions may qualify and justify the invocation of the Clause under the specific terms of each commercial contract. Update Clauses for Future Contracts: When negotiating new contracts, consider the new risks and evolving geo-political realities to include in the language of the Force Majeure Clause. Renegotiate Existing Contracts: If possible (whether or not a Force Majeure Clause exists in a particular contract), businesses should explore renegotiating the existing contractual terms, in order to avoid formal disputes (whether a dispute could arise due to an absence of a Force Majeure Clause or regarding the drafted and controlling Force Majeure clause). Strategic Decisions and Potential Leverage in the Mere Threat to Invoke the Clause Invoking force majeure carries inherent litigation risk. In some cases, the credible threat of invocation may provide sufficient leverage to renegotiate terms without the need to actually trigger the Clause itself and thereby avoid potentially costly and long formal disputes in litigation or arbitration. A careful, contract-specific analysis is essential before taking action. Conclusion The widening Middle East conflict has far-reaching commercial implications well beyond the energy sector and that region of the globe. Businesses should immediately review their contractual obligations to determine whether force majeure relief is available and if so if it may be advisable to claim (or at least threaten to claim vis-à-vis all contractual parties). Proactive contract review—and, where necessary, revision through possible re-negotiations - will better position companies to manage risk, maintain flexibility, and protect against ongoing and future disruptions in this turbulent global economy. by S. George Alfonso Navigating international trade during a global conflict demands more than just legal knowledge—it requires strategic foresight. At Schulz Trade Law, in partnership with the Law Offices of S. George Alfonso, we help businesses interpret complex clauses in the context of current Middle East developments. Contact us to discuss how we can help you defend your interests and manage performance expectations under your most critical international contracts. S. George Alfonso founded The Law Offices of S. George Alfonso, PLLC over thirty years ago. He provides his unique brand of “Concierge Counsel” to both U.S. and international clients regarding commercial contract negotiations, as well as U.S. litigation and arbitration. Mr. Alfonso’s firm focuses on “Problem Solving” (dispute resolution) in a variety of commercial scenarios, including pre-litigation and arbitration, as well as during litigation and arbitration. The Law Offices of S. George Alfonso, PLLC is a Strategic Partner with Schulz Trade Law, PLLC, providing the firms’ respective clients with elite international trade, contract, and dispute resolution representation. Resource Library Learn more about Trade Law. We have a series of articles highlighting the key components of international trade and compliance. Contact Us Stay ahead of trade law changes! Contact us today for guidance on tariffs and regulations to safeguard your business.

Navigating the $166 Billion IEEPA Refund: Opportunity Amidst Obstacles The Mechanism is Live—But Is Your Business Ready for the Hurdles? Overview The federal government has officially opened the application portal for International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariff refunds, placing an estimated $166 billion back within reach of American importers. While this marks a historic opportunity for liquidity and price stabilization, early reports from the field indicate that claiming these funds is anything but a "click-and-submit" process. From technical failures to regulatory delays, businesses must navigate a complex landscape to secure their payouts. April 23, 2026 NBC 5 KXAS, Dallas/Fort Worth Reporter: Vince Sims The Reality of the Refund Portal As the portal launched, the immediate surge in traffic created significant technical bottlenecks. For many importers, the excitement of the announcement was quickly met with the frustration of a system unable to handle the load. Ron Henderson, President of Varaluz, recently shared his experience with NBC 5, describing the process as a "rollercoaster." For companies that have had to rebrand tariff costs as "pricing strategies" to remain palatable to consumers, these refunds represent a vital chance to prevent further price hikes. However, Henderson notes that the primary challenge remains simply getting the government’s digital infrastructure to cooperate. Managing Expectations: The Timeline vs. The Reality While the official word suggests a turnaround time for refunds, industry experts advise a more cautious outlook. Michelle Schulz, founder of Schulz Trade Law PLLC, emphasizes that while the existence of a formal mechanism is "great news for people in the industry," the path forward will likely be paved with administrative friction. "Theoretically, it should take 60 to 90 days," Schulz explains. "I expect delays, though. There will be questions, and it may take more than that." Beyond the technical glitches, importers should be prepared for: Government Inquiries: Requests for additional documentation to verify "Importer of Record" status. Compliance Verification: A potential look-back at previous filings triggered by the refund request. Logistical Backlogs: As hundreds of thousands of claims hit the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) desks simultaneously. Strategic Takeaway for Importers The $166 billion is on the table, but it isn't "found money." It is a legal recovery process that requires precision. Importers should ensure their documentation is airtight before attempting to navigate the portal, as errors during the filing process could lead to more than just delays—they could trigger unwanted audits. Is your business prepared to claim its share of the IEEPA refunds? Don't let technical errors or documentation gaps leave your funds in the government's hands. Contact Schulz Trade Law PLLC today for a compliance review and expert guidance on navigating the refund process. Trade on, but trade informed! Subscribe to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.

Supreme Court Tariff Ruling: Who Actually Gets a Refund? The refund portal is open — but for most businesses and consumers, the path to recovering tariff costs is far more complicated than it looks. Overview When the Supreme Court struck down President Trump's emergency tariffs, many businesses assumed a refund was on the way. The federal government has since opened an application portal to process an estimated $127 billion in refunds — but trade law experts warn that eligibility is narrow, the process is complex, and the money may not flow where people expect. April 20, 2026 FOX 26 KRIV TV / Houston Interview shown on 117 Channels Reporter: Tom Zizka Refunds Underway The ruling set off a wave of anticipation across the business community. Major retailers — Walmart, Target, Nike, Kohl's, Costco, FedEx, and thousands of smaller importers — are among the more than 300,000 companies that brought goods into the United States under the now-invalidated tariffs. Walmart alone could be due as much as $10 billion in refunds, according to some Wall Street analysts. The government's online portal opened for applications, and while some users reported sluggish performance, it did not crash under the anticipated demand. Customs and Border Protection has indicated the review process will take 60 to 90 days. However, the legal picture is more complicated for businesses further down the supply chain. Under current trade law, only registered importers and licensed customs brokers are eligible to file refund claims. If your business purchased goods from an importer but did not directly pay the tariffs yourself, you likely have no legal right to file — regardless of how much those tariff costs affected your bottom line. Michelle Schulz, founder of Schulz Trade Law PLLC, underscores the risk for businesses that assumed a refund agreement was implied: "If you were a customer of the importer, you don't technically have a right to file a claim. And if you didn't have an agreement with the importer that you get a refund when they get a refund, you may not have a right to that claim. It can be a legal mess." Even for eligible importers who do receive refunds, there is no obligation to pass those savings on to consumers or business customers. Some companies have signaled they would lower prices; others are reserving judgment until the money arrives. And separately, a number of other tariffs unrelated to the Supreme Court ruling remain in effect — meaning the broader trade landscape is still very much in flux. Not Sure Where Your Business Stands? Let's Talk. Tariff refund eligibility is a nuanced area of trade law, and the window to act is limited. Whether you're a direct importer evaluating your claim or a business trying to understand your options, Schulz Trade Law PLLC can help you navigate the process with clarity and confidence. Contact us today for a consultation. Trade on, but trade informed! Subscribe to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.

Beyond the Blockade: Navigating the Economic Aftershocks of Global Trade Instability Michelle Schulz joins SiriusXM’s Road Dog Trucking to discuss the Strait of Hormuz, the "ACE" refund system, and the looming threat of a 2026 recession. Overview As military maneuvers intensify in the Strait of Hormuz and diplomatic tensions rise with our North American neighbors, the U.S. economy is entering a period of "choppy waters." In a comprehensive interview on Road Dog Trucking with Dan Ronen, international trade attorney Michelle Schulz detailed how these global disruptions are trickling down to the American consumer. From surging gas prices to the rerouting of shipping containers around the Cape of Good Hope, the "state of confusion" in global logistics is forcing many U.S. importers to fight for their survival. April 14, 2026 Road Dog Trucking SiriusXM Host: Dan Ronan, Senior Reporter at Transport Topics The Logistics Crisis and the Path to Recovery The conversation highlighted a critical shift in the trade landscape: the movement toward "near-shoring" is stalling due to instability within the USMCA, while the domestic trucking industry faces a significant dip in container volumes. Michelle emphasizes that for businesses to survive this volatility, they must move beyond traditional logistics and explore technical trade solutions like Foreign Trade Zones (FTZs) and bonded warehouses to manage rising costs. Perhaps most pressing for many businesses is the legal battle over tariffs. While many emergency tariffs have been deemed unconstitutional, Michelle warns that reclaiming those funds will be a marathon, not a sprint. "Getting the money back is going to be much harder than putting the money in. Customs typically drag their feet on refunds. The good thing about this is it is electronic and it is supposed to be automatic... but it will not be fast. I don’t expect it’ll be a quick turnaround." To facilitate this, Michelle advises importers to immediately utilize the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system to identify entries and begin the claim process, even as the government prepares for a "long, slow, litigious process." Secure Your Refunds and Future-Proof Your Supply Chain.  Whether you are navigating the complexities of the ACE refund system or looking to implement a Foreign Trade Zone to defer rising tariffs, expert guidance is your best defense. Contact Schulz Trade Law to connect with a technical expert who can help your company save money and stay compliant in a volatile market. Trade on, but trade informed! Subscribe to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.

Resource Article So You Want to Export Semiconductors Ashlyn Koenig Smith, Schulz Trade Law PLLC Feb 24, 2026 Download this Article Understanding the Regulatory Landscape  for Semiconductor Exports In 2024, the total export trade value of semiconductors reached $70.1 billion, making it one of the largest exporting industries in the U.S. It propels much of modern technology and plays an important role in the global economy. As such, we will discuss three U.S. agencies that may exercise authority over semiconductor transactions: the U.S. Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), and the U.S. Department of the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). The DDTC administers the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), BIS administers the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), and OFAC administers economic and trade sanctions. We’ll explore each agency’s export authority, its licensing requirements and process, and potential violations under each. Although this is not a comprehensive list of the agencies that may be involved in semiconductor transactions, nor is it legal advice, understanding these agencies will help you navigate this complex process. Navigate Export Regulations with Confidence Schulz Trade Law  offers a library of Trade Law Resources. Download this article ITAR The first question to ask is whether or not the semiconductor or its technical data is listed on the United States Munitions List (USML). The USML lists items and activities pertinent to national security that pertain to defense and aerospace. It's comprised of twenty-two categories, such as Category IX: Military Training Equipment and Training, and Category XII: Fire Control, Laser, Imaging, and Guidance Equipment. Both of these categories specifically mention semiconductors. However, this list is not exclusive, and other categories may also apply. Licensing Process If a semiconductor or its technical data is listed on the USML, then it is subject to the ITAR, which means that any entity that manufactures, brokers, exports, or reexports is required to register with the DDTC . To do so, exporters must first sign up for a DECCS account here . However, registration alone does not grant export privileges. When a license is required, typically, one must apply for an export license or other authorization through the governing agency. The online registration process is recommended; however, if one’s application includes sensitive information,  a hard copy may be submitted instead. Violations ITAR violations may subject companies and individuals to civil and criminal penalties. As of January 2026, civil penalties may result in fines of $1 million+ per violation and debarment, which means the violator is prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in the exportation of defense articles and services. Criminal penalties may also result in fines of $1 million+ per violation, and/or twenty years’ imprisonment per violation, and debarment. BIS BIS has regulatory jurisdiction over items and activities subject to the EAR. 15 CFR § 734.3 specifically lists the items over which the agency has authority, which mostly pertain to items and technologies that have dual commercial and military use.  Although a license is not required for every transaction subject to the EAR, BIS maintains strict policies concerning the exporting and reexporting of semiconductors, having strengthened restrictions on semiconductor exports in December 2024. It is therefore essential to confirm if/when a semiconductor transaction requires licensing before exporting.  To determine if BIS requires a license for an export transaction, the first step is to determine whether the item is listed under the Commerce Control List (CCL) , which is organized into ten categories. To determine if an item is subject to the CCL and which category applies, consult the Export Control Classification Number (ECCN). If it is classified under an ECCN, reference the Commerce Country Chart to determine if its designated category requires licensing for a particular country.  As an example, ECCN 3B001 concerns “Equipment for the manufacturing of semiconductor devices, materials, or related equipment, as follows (see List of Items Controlled) and “specially designed” “components” and “accessories” therefor.”  An item classified as 3B001.c.1.a is controlled for National Security (NS) and is subject to Worldwide control, which means it requires a license regardless of its destination. Again, this is only one example and is not meant to advise on specific licensing processes. Additionally, the ECCN is subject to change, so just because a product isn’t currently classified under the CCL doesn’t mean that it won’t be there in the future.  In some cases, an item on the CCL may be eligible for a license exception . See 15 CFR § 740. Some exceptions may include, but are not limited to: Shipments of limited value (LVS), Technology and software under restriction (TSR), Encryption commodities, software, and technology (ENC), and License Exception Strategic Trade Authorization (STA). If a transaction qualifies, an exporter must properly document the license exception symbol along with the ECCN and keep records of the transaction in accordance with 15 CFR § 762. Exceptions are only valid when properly claimed. However, even if the item does not fall under the CCL, it may still require licensing, depending upon its end-use or end-user. Furthermore, BIS maintains a Denied Persons List (DPL) , which details entities that are denied export privileges. Exporters must screen potential transactions against the DPL to ensure export compliance in accordance with the EAR. Licensing Process If a semiconductor transaction requires licensing via BIS according to 15 C.F.R. § 730-774, exporters can apply for such licensing via the SNAP-R portal .  The status of an application can be tracked via STELA . Violations While ensuring export compliance may require companies to incur additional costs, in the long run, it can curb hefty fines and serious penalties that may result from export violations. According to the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, an EAR violation may result in penalties “of up to 20 years of imprisonment and up to $1 million in fines per violation, or both.”  OFAC OFAC regulatory jurisdiction typically relates to economic sanctions against countries, individuals or groups. Economic sanctions vary depending on the country or persons they target, but may prohibit transactions within certain sectors of a country's economy. For instance, since March 31st, 2022, E.O 14024 prohibits any significant transactions involving Russia’s electronics sector, which specifically includes semiconductors.  A comprehensive list of OFAC-sanctioned entities and the types of sanctions said entities are subject to can be found here.  Notably, OFAC does not maintain a specific country list, as those subject to such sanctions may change locations and/or conduct business in places one would not expect. Therefore, exporters must stay up-to-date on OFAC’s sanction list when determining license requirements from the agency to export semiconductors to a specific entity.  Additionally, one agency's policy change does not necessarily mean that another agency changed its policy as well. For instance, on January 13, 2026, BIS issued a rule that stated the agency will now review export licenses for semiconductors such as Nvidia H200, AMD MI325X, and similar chips destined for China on a case-by-case basis. Previously, such transactions were subject to a presumption of denial. However, even if the new policy applies to a transaction, export compliance due diligence still requires exporters to ensure an item is not destined for an OFAC-sanctioned entity. In other words,  do not assume export compliance simply because a transaction is compliant with one agency.  Licensing Process If a semiconductor transaction requires a license from OFAC, exporters can apply for such licensing here  via the agency's online portal. In the application, provide detailed, fact-based information as to the purpose of the transaction and why it requires licensing. After the application is submitted, it can be tracked through that same portal. Violations As of January 2026, those who violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the Trading With the Enemy Act (TWEA), and any other OFAC sanctions  may be subject to maximum civil penalties per violation as follows: IEEPA Violations:  $377,700 or twice the amount of the underlying transactions. TWEA Violations:  $111,308. Since a transaction may be subject to both OFAC sanctions and the EAR, it may require licensing from more than one agency. Therefore, a transaction can violate more than one agency's license requirements and, as such, may result in penalties from multiple agencies. For instance, according to an April 2023 press release via OFAC, BIS and OFAC ordered Microsoft to pay a total of $3.3 million in combined penalties for allegedly violating the EAR and OFAC sanction regulations. Conclusion In short, DDTC regulates transactions subject to the ITAR, while BIS regulates transactions subject to the EAR, and OFAC regulates transactions with sanctioned entities. Throughout the semiconductor transaction process, exporters are required to conduct thorough due diligence regarding the product's application, end use, and end user to determine if the transaction requires a license from a particular agency to export or re-export. Remember, just because an item requires a license to export through one agency does not mean that a license through another agency is not required as well.  Even though ensuring export compliance may require additional time, money, and resources, it can prevent lengthy legal proceedings and/or massive fines that may arise from export violations. For further assistance in navigating semiconductor exports, contact one of the experienced trade attorneys at If you’re ready to navigate the semiconductor export landscape effectively, reach out to our knowledgeable team today! For further assistance, contact one of the trade attorneys at Schulz Trade Law PLLC Sources U.S. Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) Link to DDTC website U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) Link to BIS website U.S. Department of the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) Link to OFAC website International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) Link to ITAR regulations Export Administration Regulations (EAR) Link to EAR regulations Economic and Trade Sanctions Link to economic sanctions information Resource Library Learn more about Trade Law. We have a series of articles highlighting the key components of international trade and compliance. Contact Us Stay ahead of trade law changes! Contact us today for guidance on tariffs and regulations to safeguard your business.

Energy in Crisis: How the Conflict in Iran is Reshaping Global Trade Expert insights from Michelle Schulz on surging oil prices, insurance standstills, and the ripple effect on American consumers. Overview The intensifying conflict with Iran has sent shockwaves through the global economy, pushing crude oil prices past $100 a barrel for the first time in four years. With approximately 20% of the world’s oil supply flowing through the Strait of Hormuz , the halt of tanker traffic has created a supply bottleneck that threatens to drive up costs across nearly every sector of the U.S. economy —from transportation and manufacturing to the price of groceries. March 9, 2026 Local News Live Gray Media/TV Host: Stetson Miller The Logistics of a Standstill In a recent interview with Gray Media’s Local News Live , Michelle Schulz, founder of Schulz Trade Law, explained that the primary driver behind the sudden halt in traffic isn't just the physical conflict, but the collapse of the necessary financial and insurance infrastructure that allows global trade to function. As shipping lanes become combat zones, the cost of risk becomes prohibitive. Michelle noted the immediate impact on the maritime industry: "There was a risk that those ships would come under attack from Iran, and as soon as it seemed to become a reasonable possibility, insurers like, you know, Lloyds of London, insurers refused to insure the ships going through. And that basically stopped traffic in its tracks." This interruption is more than a logistical hurdle; it is a catalyst for broader inflation. Because oil and gas are foundational to modern industry, the spike at the pump is only the beginning. As Michelle emphasized during the segment, "Those prices are going to go up, and they will make other prices go up." Navigate Global Volatility with Confidence. In an era where geopolitical shifts can disrupt your supply chain overnight, proactive legal strategy is essential. Contact Schulz Trade Law  to discuss how we can help you mitigate risk and maintain compliance during times of global crisis. Trade on, but trade informed! Subscribe  to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.

The Billion-Dollar Wait: Navigating Post-Ruling Tariff Refunds Why recent legal victories for Texas importers may face a long, complex road to actual reimbursement. Overview Following a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that more than $126 billion  in emergency tariffs were collected illegally, the U.S. Court of International Trade has ordered the administration to begin refunds. While U.S. Customs and Border Protection aims to begin processing these claims within 45 days, legal experts warn that the process will be neither swift nor simple. March 9, 2026 " Texas businesses could wait years for tariff reimbursements — if they come at all — despite court rulings . " Publication: Houston Public Media PBS / NPR The Challenge of Recovery While the judicial path has cleared, the administrative hurdles remain significant. Importers must weigh the benefit of a refund against the potential for increased government scrutiny. Michelle Schulz , a Dallas-based trade attorney, highlights a critical risk for businesses entering the refund system: "They will have a system whereby they’ll refund your money. The problem is, Customs is also going to be looking in that same system to see if you made any mistakes, and they can go back five years." - Michelle Schulz As the administration signals potential shifts toward new 15% global tariffs under different statutes, the actual long-term impact of these hard-won refunds remains to be seen. Protect Your Compliance Record While Seeking Redress. Navigating the refund process requires a clean five-year audit trail to avoid unexpected liabilities. Contact Schulz Trade Law today  to review your records before you file for reimbursement. Trade on, but trade informed! Subscribe  to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.

Navigating the Ripple Effects: Global Trade and the Iran Conflict The Hidden Costs of Disruption in the Strait of Hormuz Overview The current tensions in the Middle East have sent tremors through the global supply chain, extending far beyond the gas pump. As conflict disrupts one of the world's most critical maritime arteries—the Strait of Hormuz —importers and exporters face a complex landscape of rising costs and logistical hurdles. International trade attorney Michelle Schulz recently joined This Morning with Gordon Deal  to break down what this means for businesses and consumers alike. March 6, 2026 This Morning with Gordon Deal Gordon Deal Show Host: Gordon Deal While energy prices often dominate the headlines during Middle East (Iran) conflicts, the economic impact is much broader. The Strait of Hormuz is a vital transit point for a significant portion of the world's petroleum and liquefied natural gas. However, as Michelle Schulz points out, the "ripple effect" hits manufacturing and consumer goods almost immediately. The Plastic and Production Squeeze The cost of raw materials is intrinsically linked to energy stability. Because plastics are derived from petroleum and natural gas, any disruption in the Strait quickly translates to higher production costs for everything from household goods to industrial components. "Plastics are based around oil or natural gas. Heating, air conditioning, cooking—all that stuff gets more expensive when there's a shortage... anything surrounding the oil and gas industry is also going to be impacted." — Michelle Schulz Logistics and the "Plan B" Reality For companies moving goods through the region, the choice is often between high-risk transit or expensive, time-consuming detours. Safety concerns for personnel and cargo are forcing many to implement secondary logistics strategies, such as rerouting around the Cape of Good Hope. "They have to consider whether they will wait, whether it's safe for their personnel to go in those areas... they're having to reroute, and they have different routes that they pursue. They do have to make longer hours for pilots, extra jet fuel... you'll see higher shipping bills." — Michelle Schulz The Shifting Regulatory Landscape Beyond physical logistics, the legal and regulatory environment is equally volatile. Sanctions and political instability can change the viability of trade agreements and export licenses overnight, requiring businesses to be more agile than ever. "Depending on the political situation, you may or may not get your license approved. That can change from day to day... We will definitely change our advice to clients depending on the situation at the time." — Michelle Schulz Is Your Supply Chain Prepared? In a global economy, local conflicts rarely stay local. Whether you are dealing with increased shipping bills, licensing delays, or the need for alternative sourcing, having a robust legal and logistical strategy is essential. Don't wait for the next disruption to secure your trade routes.   Contact Schulz Trade Law today to review your export licenses and develop a resilient "Plan B" for your global operations. Trade on, but trade informed! Subscribe  to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.

Resource Article Recent Export Penalties and How to Avoid Them Ashlyn Koenig Smith, Schulz Trade Law PLLC Feb 24, 2026 Download this Article An Export Administration Regulations (EAR) violation can result in penalties "of up to 20 years of imprisonment and up to $1 million in fines per violation, or both.” [1]   Export violations are widely publicized, so it is paramount to stay current on recent export enforcement to avoid penalties and understand the latest trends in enforcement. Thus, we will explore two EAR violations and the penalties that followed, according to recent publicly available knowledge. We will also touch on general trends in penalty violations from court orders of the last six months, and red flags to look out for in transactions   that may require EAR licensing. Schulz Trade Law offers a library of Trade Law Resources. Download this article Recent EAR Violations: Between November 8, 2020, and July 18, 2022, Applied Materials Inc ., a semiconductor manufacturing equipment company based in California, and its subsidiary, Applied Materials Korea, based in South Korea, allegedly reexported or attempted to reexport items subject to the EAR without the proper licensing on fifty-six occasions, according to a court order released on 2/11/26. This was done even though they were informed by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) that they were required to do so when exporting or reexporting ion implanters, which are semiconductor materials, to SMIC Subsidiaries. Specifically, they violated 15 C.F.R. § 764.2(a) – Engaging in Prohibited Conduct and 15 C.F.R. § 764.2(c) – Attempting to Engage in Prohibited Conduct. The company settled and agreed to pay a fine of $252,500,300 , one of the largest fines the agency has issued thus far, and the maximum fine allowed by the Export Control Reform Act of 2018. It must also complete two internal audits of its export controls compliance program. If the company failed to abide by the conditions of the settlement, it could lose export privileges for three years. [2]   Secondly, in October of 2022, Luminultra Technologies , located in Linthicum Heights, Maryland, allegedly sent PhotoMaster luminometers and aqueous test kits to Iran, forgoing the required licensing as set out in 15 C.F.R §746.7(e). A court order released on 09/30/2025 alleged that the company knew that Iran was its product's ultimate end-user, and that this violated EAR licensing requirements, but went ahead with the sale regardless. Ultimately, Luminultra and BIS agree to settle. The company had to pay a fine of $685,051 . It was also ordered to complete an export compliance audit for 2025 and for each of the next three years, and all employees had to complete export compliance training. If the company failed to abide by the conditions of the settlement, they would be subject to lose export privileges for three years. [3]   Trends In addition to the aforementioned violations, several other EAR penalties issued between September 2025 and February 2026 had to do with firearms, their parts, accessories, and ammunition, as well as airplane parts. Many of the times, these products were sent to Russia, China, South American countries, and Middle Eastern countries. However, as the Luminultra violation demonstrates, companies should not assume that only such products require EAR licensing. Likewise, it should not be assumed that only those sending products to the aforementioned countries require licensing. Rather, companies need to be aware of their products' end users and final destinations.   Red Flags This is because potential license violations depend on one’s knowledge of the end use of their products. However, this does not mean companies or firms should intentionally blind themselves to potential red flags by discouraging buyers from sharing certain information, as this, too, may lead to penalties. Instead, the EAR highly encourages businesses and firms to become familiar with its extensive list of red flags one should be aware of when considering whether or not a product will end up in the appropriate end-user destination. [4]   Some of which include: 1 The product does not align with the buyer’s business. For instance, an aquarium attempts to order complex commercial airplane parts. 2 A buyer offers to pay cash for an expensive product when it’s typically paid for via financing. 3 The buyer evades questions concerning whether the product is for domestic use, export, or reexport. 4 A buyer declines routine installation, training, or maintenance services of a product he’s seeking to purchase. 5 A buyer wants a highly technical product shipped to a country that does not have an industry to support it. For instance , a buyer ordering semiconductor parts to a country without an electronics industry. If you have encountered a red flag, do not ship the product until it is resolved. It's generally advisable to hold the export and seek further guidance.   Conclusion While recent trends in enforcement such involving enforcement tend to involve semiconductors, firearms, and aviation, as well as countries like Russia, China, and those in the Middle East and South America, this article only scratches the surface of EAR licensing, penalties, and violations. To avoid EAR penalties, companies must be vigilant when assessing the ultimate end use of their product. For further assistance in navigating the EAR, contact one of the trade attorneys at Schulz Trade Law PLLC   [1]   Export Control Reform Act of 2018,  50 USC §§ 4801-4852 (2018). [2]   Order Relating to Applied Materials Inc. and Applied Materials Korea,  U.S Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, February 11, 2026, 2-4,14-16. [3]   Order Relating to Luminultra Technologies Inc., U.S Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, September 30, 2025,1-9. [4] 15 CFR §732 Supplement No. 3, (2026). Resource Library Learn more about Trade Law. We have a series of articles highlighting the key components of international trade and compliance. Contact Us Stay ahead of trade law changes! Contact us today for guidance on tariffs and regulations to safeguard your business.

Navigating the New Era of Trade The Founder of Schulz Trade Law shares insights on Supreme Court shifts, the 15% global tariff threat, and why "expecting the unexpected" is the only strategy for 2026. Overview In the wake of landmark judicial rulings and a rapidly shifting executive approach to international trade, businesses are facing an unprecedented administrative burden. Michelle Schulz, Founder and Managing Partner of Schulz Trade Law PLLC, has spent over two decades guiding Fortune 500 companies through these exact types of regulatory storms. In this exclusive interview, Michelle breaks down the legal complexities of 2026, from the "major questions" doctrine to the tactical necessity of supply chain diversification. Feb 23, 2026 The Briefing with Steve Scully SiriusXM POTUS Host: Steve Scully The Judicial Shake-up and Tariff Refunds The start of 2026 has been defined by the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down emergency tariffs, leaving billions of dollars in duties in limbo. For importers, the question isn’t just about future strategy—it’s about recovering what was already paid. Michelle emphasizes that while the legal victory is significant, the path to a refund is far from a straight line. "The status of billions in duties remains in limbo. For many companies, the administrative burden of tracking and reclaiming these funds is extraordinary. To grow in a healthy way, leading companies are reevaluating the regulatory landscape and scaling up their compliance programs to meet these demands." The Reality of "Trump II" and Global Tariffs With the administration pivoting toward a 15% global import tax and citing new legal authorities, the cost of doing business is shifting overnight. Michelle highlights that these policies aren't just numbers on a balance sheet—they have a direct, compounding effect on everything from raw materials to consumer-facing prices. "When you think about the staggering scale of these tariffs—sometimes reaching triple digits in specific sectors—the cost will inevitably be passed down. You have to expect the unexpected; any country with a trade surplus is now an area where the government may look to offset that imbalance." Strategic Compliance in a Volatile Market For Michelle, the solution isn't just reacting to news—it's building a resilient infrastructure. Whether it’s navigating the UFLPA, country-of-origin rules, or EAR/ITAR licensing, she advocates for a proactive "solution-focused" approach that treats compliance as a competitive advantage rather than a hurdle. "There is going to be a transition period before new infrastructure is in place. Companies must adopt trade compliance programs that minimize legal risks while promoting growth. It’s about more than just checking boxes; it’s about strategic import and export decisions in real-time." Don’t Navigate These Shifting Currents Alone.   With new tariffs being announced and judicial rulings changing the game, your business needs more than just legal advice—it needs a strategic partner. Contact Schulz Trade Law to schedule a consultation and ensure your compliance program is ready for the challenges of 2026. Trade on, but trade informed! Subscribe  to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.

The Future of Tariffs:  Navigating the Supreme Court’s Recent Ruling and What It Means for Your Business Unpacking the legal shift in trade policy, the 15% workaround, and the fight for $175 billion in tariff refunds. In a landmark decision that has sent shockwaves through the global trade community, the Supreme Court recently ruled 6-3 that certain tariffs implemented by the executive branch were illegal. The court’s message was clear: the power to levy tariffs belongs to Congress, not the President. This ruling has left $175 billion in collected revenue hanging in the balance and sparked a new executive order aimed at a 15% tariff "workaround." To help make sense of this legal whirlwind, trade law expert Michelle Schulz  of Schulz Trade Law joined WLW Radio’s Scott Sloan to discuss the implications for businesses, consumers, and the future of international trade. Feb 23, 2026 WLW Radio Cincinnati Host: Scott Sloan The Power Shift: Why the Supreme Court Sided with Congress The core of the Supreme Court's ruling rests on the separation of powers. For decades, the executive branch has utilized specific trade laws—such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—to implement tariffs. However, the court has now drawn a hard line, stating that unilateral implementation overstepped constitutional boundaries. "This is not your job. This is a job of Congress," Michelle explains, summarizing the court's definitive stance. "The power to tax and the power to set tariffs is a Congressional power, and the President can't just take it under the guise of an emergency." The $175 Billion Question: Will Companies Get Their Money Back? With the Supreme Court declaring the IEEPA tariffs illegal, the immediate question for many businesses is: What happens to the money we already paid?  Currently, the U.S. Treasury is sitting on approximately $175 billion in revenue collected under the now-invalidated rules. "It’s not an automatic refund," Michelle warns. "Companies have to be proactive. If you haven't filed a protest or a claim, the government isn't just going to mail you a check. You have to go after it legally." The 15% Workaround and the Impact on Your Wallet The legal victory for opponents of the tariffs was short-lived. In response to the ruling, the administration pivoted to Section 122 of the Trade Act, implementing a 15% "surcharge" as a workaround. This ensures that trade tensions—and the resulting costs passed on to consumers—remain high. "We’re in a game of legal Whac-A-Mole," says Michelle. "One door closes and the administration opens another. For the business owner, it means the 15% is still there, just under a different name, and you have to adjust your pricing all over again." Take Action: Is Your Business Owed a Refund? The Supreme Court ruling has opened a narrow window for companies to seek redress for illegally collected tariffs. Don't leave your hard-earned capital in the hands of the Treasury. If your business has been impacted by recent tariff hikes, you need expert guidance to determine your eligibility for a refund and to navigate the new 15% executive order. Contact Schulz Trade Law today to protect your bottom line. Trade on, but trade informed! Subscribe  to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.