DDP Indirect Representation: Who Is Really Your Importer of Record for Post-Entry Refund Claims

When a Chinese or overseas supplier arranges Delivered Duty Paid shipping to a US buyer, the party who files the CBP Form 7501 as Importer of Record is typically not the US buyer. This has direct consequences for refund eligibility, Post Summary Correction filings, and 19 USC 1592 penalty exposure.

The February 2026 SCOTUS decision striking down the IEEPA-based tariffs, the April 2026 launch of the CAPE tool in ACE for bulk-filing refund claims, and the July 24 2026 sunset of Section 122 have made IOR identification a first-order question for any importer trying to figure out if they have refund standing on prior entries.

The IOR test is line 27 on the 7501, not who paid

Under 19 USC 1484, the Importer of Record is the party responsible for filing the entry summary and for the accuracy of the classification, valuation, and duty computation shown on the entry. The IOR is identified on the entry summary by name and IRS employer identification number, appearing on line 27 of CBP Form 7501.

Line 26 of the same form shows the Ultimate Consignee, the party receiving the goods at the destination address. Line 26 and line 27 can be the same party or different parties.

In a standard DDP shipment where a Chinese supplier arranges freight and clearance to a US buyer's door, the supplier's US broker typically files the entry summary under one of two patterns:

Pattern A: Supplier's US warehouse or US-established affiliate as IOR. Many Chinese factories that ship DDP have a US-registered entity (LLC or C-corp) whose sole purpose is to serve as IOR for their US-bound freight. The warehouse or affiliate signs a POA with the broker and appears on line 27. The US buyer appears on line 26 as the ultimate consignee.

Pattern B: Broker of record filing under 19 CFR 141.11. Where the supplier does not have a US-established entity, the freight forwarder's US broker may assume the entry as broker of record, effectively acting as IOR for CBP purposes. The broker's IRS number appears on line 27. This is the "indirect representation" pattern.

In both patterns, the US buyer is the ultimate consignee but not the IOR.

Why the IOR distinction matters for refund claims

Refund claims under 19 USC 1520(d), Post Summary Corrections under 19 USC 1520 more broadly, protest filings under 19 USC 1514, and CAPE tool submissions all have the same standing rule: the party filing the claim must be the party whose name and IRS number appear on line 27 of the original entry summary.

If the supplier was IOR on the original entry, the refund flows to the supplier when the claim is granted. The US buyer's recovery is contractual, not customs-law. This means:

• The US buyer must have a pass-through provision in the purchase contract requiring the supplier to remit any refunded duty to the buyer
• Without a pass-through provision, the supplier may pocket the refund even if the buyer ultimately bore the economic incidence of the duty through the invoice price
• Enforcement of the pass-through is a commercial contract dispute in the supplier's home jurisdiction, not a CBP proceeding

For high-volume US buyers of Chinese-origin goods who paid IEEPA duties or Section 122 duties through DDP arrangements, this is where large recovery gaps open up.

The CAPE tool does not change standing

CBP launched the Consolidated Adjustment for Prior Entries (CAPE) module in ACE on April 20 2026. CAPE lets an IOR bulk-file corrections and refund claims against multiple prior entries in a single submission rather than filing individual PSC or 1520(d) petitions per entry.

CAPE reduces the transaction cost of filing at scale but does not change refund standing. The IOR filing the CAPE claim must be the IOR on the original entries. A US buyer who was ultimate consignee but not IOR cannot use CAPE to claim IEEPA refunds on entries filed under the supplier's IOR.

FedEx and SF International refund pathways

Both FedEx and SF International (SF Express's international air/ocean arm) offered post-SCOTUS IEEPA refund tools to their customers. These pathways only work where the customer was the actual IOR on the entry. Where FedEx or SF International's broker was the IOR under a DDP arrangement, the refund flows to the broker's own filing entity, not to the shipper or receiver.

Before assuming a FedEx or SF International refund tool covers your entries, pull the ACE Entry Summary printout for each entry and confirm line 27 shows your name and EIN. If line 27 shows the freight carrier's US broker or a warehouse entity, the refund tool does not restore duty to you.

The audit checklist for post-entry refund eligibility

For any US buyer trying to determine refund eligibility on entries filed while IEEPA or Section 122 was in force:

1. Pull the ACE Entry Summary printout (or ABI extract) for every entry in the relevant time window
2. Read line 27 (IOR name and IRS number) on each entry
3. If line 27 shows your EIN, you have standing to file PSC, 19 USC 1520(d), or CAPE claims for refund
4. If line 27 shows the supplier's EIN or a US-established affiliate/warehouse of the supplier, the refund pathway flows to that party. Your recovery is contractual only
5. If line 27 shows a broker's EIN under 19 CFR 141.11 indirect representation, the broker or their designated party is IOR and you have no direct standing

For entries where you are the IOR, the CAPE tool is the fastest path to bulk-file corrections. For entries where you are not the IOR, the recovery is a supplier contract negotiation, not a CBP proceeding.

19 USC 1592 penalty exposure and IOR

The IOR distinction also matters for penalty liability. Under 19 USC 1592, penalties for negligent, grossly negligent, or fraudulent entry filings are assessed against the IOR. The Ultimate Consignee is generally not liable for the IOR's filing errors, though there are exceptions where the consignee knowingly benefited from a fraudulent understatement.

For US buyers using DDP arrangements, the IOR distinction cuts both ways: no refund standing on the upside, but also no direct penalty liability on the downside if the supplier's broker misclassified or under-valued the entry.

The practical takeaway: before entering a DDP arrangement with a Chinese or overseas supplier, negotiate a pass-through provision for refund flows and an audit right on the ACE Entry Summary printouts to verify IOR designation.