Over Half a Billion Dollars Could Be Refunded to Foreign Companies
If the Supreme Court rules against President Trump’s tariffs, hundreds of millions of dollars collected under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) could be refunded to foreign shrimp exporters, since they—not U.S. businesses or consumers —paid the tariffs.
IEEPA Causes Dramatic Shifts in Calculated Duties
The federal government recently released import statistics through October 2025 showing a dramatic change in shrimp imports and collected “calculated duties,” which exclude antidumping and countervailing duties assessed on imports.
Until 2025, frozen shrimp entered the U.S. mostly tariff-free. Between 2018 and 2024, the government collected $6.7 million in Section 301 duties on Chinese shrimp. However, in the first ten months of 2025, the U.S. has assessed $385.9 million in tariffs on shrimp imports from all countries.
This substantial increase in levied tariffs is a direct result of President Trump’s imposition of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which began in February 2025 for some countries. The Supreme Court is now reviewing whether he had the legal authority to do this in a case called V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump. If the Court says no, the government may be required to refund all that money to the importers who paid it. In other words, foreign competitors could receive a huge cash infusion.
The total amount of additional duties paid on shrimp in 2025 is likely to be well over a half a billion dollars, as “calculated duties” increased each month last year.
Imports Keep Growing Despite Higher Tariffs
Shrimp imports had been declining continually over the last three years, dropping fourteen percent (14%) from 1.83 billion pounds in 2021 to 1.56 billion pounds in 2024.
But even with the new tariffs, shrimp imports have actually increased in 2025.
Key facts:
- The U.S. imported 1.35 billion pounds of shrimp in the first ten months of 2025, compared to 1.28 billion pounds in the same period of 2024—a 5.7% increase
- Imports from the United States’ two largest suppliers of shrimp, India and Ecuador, increased 8.8% in 2025 compared to 2024, growing from 889.7 million pounds to 967.7 million pounds
- Although imports of Indian shrimp sharply declined between September (57.9 million pounds) and October (27.2 million pounds), the volume of shrimp imported from all other significant sources increased in October:
Current Duty Landscape
The recent decline in volume in Indian shrimp imports corresponds to the much larger duty rates imposed on Indian-origin products than shrimp from other sources.
- Indian-origin shrimp is subject to (1) an additional 50% IEEPA tariff; (2) a countervailing duty of between 5.63% and 5.87%; and (3) an antidumping duty of between 0.00% and 2.49%.
o The Department of Commerce has preliminarily announced that the antidumping duty imposed on Indian shrimp will increase to be between 3.21% and 5.32% in early February.
- Ecuadorian-origin shrimp is subject to (1) an additional 15% IEEPA tariff; and (2) a countervailing duty of between 3.57% and 4.41%.
- Indonesian-origin shrimp is subject to (1) an additional 19% IEEPA tariff; and (2) an antidumping duty of between 0.00% and 3.90%.
- Vietnamese-origin shrimp is subject to (1) an additional 20% IEEPA tariff; (2) a countervailing duty of between 2.84% and 196.41%; and (3) an antidumping duty of between 0.00% and 25.76%.
o The Department of Commerce has preliminary announced that the antidumping duty imposed on all Vietnamese shrimp exporters that remain subject to the antidumping duty order will increase significantly in mid-February.
- Mexican-origin shrimp continues to be imported without any tariffs.
- Thai-origin shrimp is subject to (1) an additional 19% IEEPA tariff; and (2) an antidumping duty of between 0.00% and 1.23%.
o The Department of Commerce has preliminarily announced that the antidumping duty imposed on Thai shrimp will be reset to be between 0.00% and 57.64% in mid-February.
- Argentinian-origin shrimp is subject to an additional 10% IEEPA tariff.
Because India faces the highest tariff rates, Indian shrimp accounts for nearly half of all duties collected through October —$183.4 million out of $385.9 million total calculated duties.
Who Pays the Duties on Shrimp?
Although media coverage of President Trump’s tariffs has largely focused on their impact on American businesses, the duties on imports of shrimp are principally paid by foreign entities. By absorbing duties overseas, the per pound average unit value of frozen warmwater shrimp increased just 6.5 percent in 2025 compared to 2024, growing from $3.56 per pound to $3.79 per pound. Shrimp import values remain below historical averages from the past decade—even without adjustment for inflation.
Over the past month, there have been at least 13 lawsuits filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade by 50 foreign shrimp exporters from India and Vietnam that want to ensure they get refunds if the Supreme Court rules the tariffs are illegal. (See list at end)
The lawsuits reveal that these foreign companies are the official “importers of record”—meaning they’re the ones who paid the tariffs, not American businesses. If the Supreme Court strikes down the tariffs, the U.S. Treasury would send hundreds of millions of dollars overseas directly to these foreign exporters.
Meanwhile, the federal government has a limited ability to collect duties assessed on foreign companies (“non-resident” IORs). In fact, some of the foreign companies receiving refunds will likely owe substantial amounts in additional antidumping duties this February.
For example, STAPIMEX, a Vietnamese shrimp exporter plaintiff in one CIT lawsuit, recently filed a legal brief with the U.S. Department of Commerce estimating that an additional $50 million in antidumping duties will be owed on imports of its shrimp when the federal agency issues its final determination in an ongoing administrative proceeding set to conclude in February (according to STAPIMEX, an increase in the antidumping duty rate “has resulted in a PUDD (potential uncollected dumping duty of approximately $50,000,000.”).
This means that while foreign companies can be confident they will receive any duties that must be refunded from the federal government, the federal government is likely to face extreme challenges attempting to collect additional duty amounts owed by these same foreign entities.
The Irony for American Shrimp Fishermen
Blake Price, deputy director of the Southern Shrimp Alliance, pointed out a frustrating contradiction: “When unfairly-traded shrimp imports from India, Ecuador, Indonesia, and Vietnam flooded our market, the U.S. shrimp industry absorbed a loss of over half a billion dollars in landed value. Thousands of families in communities across the Gulf and South Atlantic suffered with no help from the federal government. It is a cruel joke that our legal system provides stronger protections to the foreign competitors who decimated American fishermen.”
He emphasized that a Supreme Court ruling against President Trump “isn’t a win for American consumers, it is a windfall for foreigners who have preyed on this market and driven American companies out of business.“
The Bottom Line
If the Supreme Court rules that President Trump exceeded his authority in imposing these tariffs under IEEPA, over half a billion dollars in the U.S. Treasury could be sent overseas — mostly to foreign shrimp exporters, not to American consumers or businesses.
The U.S. industry takes comfort in the Trump Administration’s statements that there are many ways to maintain tariffs outside IEEPA and recognition that food security is a matter of national security. Implementation of these alternative tariff mechanisms must be expedited. Additional measures to support America’s shrimping families must be implemented to address the immediate danger posed by cash infusions to foreign competitors.
Additional Resources –
STAPIMEX Rebuttal Brief (Dec. 9, 2025) (see page 3)
Complaints in CIT Cases (List of Foreign Shrimp Companies Acting as Official Importer of Record according to court filings):
1. Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company v. United States, Court No. 25-00642 (Dec. 15, 2025), filed by “Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company (‘STAPIMEX’) . . . a Vietnam-based importer-of-record . . .”
2. Accelerated Freeze Drying Co. Ltd. v. United States, Court No. 26-00088 (Jan. 6, 2026), filed by (a) “Accelerated Freeze Drying Co., Ltd., . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” (b) “Apex Frozen Foods Ltd., . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” (c) “Arya Sea Foods Private Ltd., . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” and (d) “Asvini Fisheries Private Ltd., . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India.”
3. Avanti Frozen Foods Private Limited v. United States, Court No. 26-00115 (Jan. 7, 2026), filed by (a) “Avanti Frozen Foods Private Limited, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” (b) “Coastal Aqua Private Limited, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” (c) “Coastal Corporation Ltd., . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” and (d) “Devi Fisheries Limited, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India.” The remaining plaintiff in this case, AZ Gems Inc., “is a U.S. incorporated entity located and registered in Redlands, California.”
4. Devi Seafoods Ltd v. United States, Court No. 26-00117 (Jan. 7, 2026), filed by (a) “Devi Seafoods Ltd., . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” (b) “Falcon Marine Exports Limited, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” (c) “Growel Processors Pvt Ltd., . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” (d) “ITC Limited, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” and (e) “Jayalakshmi Sea Foods Pvt Ltd., . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India.”
5. Kader Exports Pvt Ltd v. United States, Court No. 26-00118 (Jan. 7, 2026), filed by (a) “Kader Exports Pvt Ltd., . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” (b) “LNSK Greenhouse Agro Products LLP, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” (c) “Mekworld Marines and Exports Private Limited, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” (d) “Munnagi Sea Foods Private Limited, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” and (e) “Naga Hanuman Fish Packers, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India.”
6. Royale Marine Impex Pvt Ltd v. United States, Court No. 26-00120 (Jan. 7, 2026), filed by (a) “Royale Marine Impex Pvt Ltd, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” (b) “Sagar Grandhi Exports Pvt Ltd, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” (c) “Sai Marine Exports Pvt Ltd, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” (d) “Sharat Industries Limited, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” and (e) “Sigma Seafoods, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India.”
7. Neeli Aqua Private Limited v. United States, Court No. 26-00122 (Jan. 7, 2026), filed by (a) “Neeli Aqua Private Limited, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” (b) “Nekkanti Sea Foods Ltd, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” (c) “NK Marine Exports L.L.P., . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” (d) “Pasupati Aquatics Private Limited, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” and (e) “Penver Products Limited, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India.”
8. Southern Tropical Foods Private Limited v. United States, Court No. 26-00129 (Jan. 7, 2026), filed by (a) “Southern Tropical Foods Private Limited, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” (b) “Sprint Exports Pvt Ltd, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” (c) “Varma Marine Private Limited, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” and (d) “Vasista Marine, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India.” The remaining plaintiff in this case, Tastematic Foods, Inc., “is a U.S. incorporated entity located and registered in Los Angeles, California.”
9. Choice Canning Company Inc. v. United States, Court No. 26-00155 (Jan. 7, 2026), filed by (a) “Veerabhadra Exports Pvt Ltd, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” (b) “Wellcome Fisheries Limited, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” (c) “Z.A. Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd., . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” and (d) “Choice Trading Corporation Private Limited, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India.” The remaining plaintiff in this case, Choice Canning Company, Inc., “is a U.S. incorporated entity located and registered in Jersey City, New Jersey.”
10. Ananda Enterprises (India) Private Limited v. United States, Court No. 26-00165 (Jan. 7, 2026), filed by (a) “Ananda Enterprises (India) Private Limited, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” (b) “Ananda Foods, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” (c) “Godavari Mega Aqua Food Park P Ltd, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” (d) “Aquatica Frozen Foods Global Pvt Ltd, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” and (e) “Sandhya Marines Limited, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India.”
11. Geo Seafoods v. United States, Court No. 26-00216 (Jan. 8, 2026), filed by (a) “Geo Seafoods, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” (b) “Monsun Foods Pvt Ltd, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” (c) “Jagadeesh Marine Exports, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” and (d) “Mourya Aquex Private Limited, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India.”
12. Sunrise Seafoods India Private Ltd v. United States, Court No. 26-00231 (Jan. 8, 2026), filed by (a) “Sunrise Seafoods India Private Ltd, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” (b) “Suryamitra Exim Pvt Ltd, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” (c) “BMR Exports, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” and (d) “BMR Industries Pvt Ltd, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India.”
13. Alashore Marine Exports Private Limited v. United States, Court No. 26-00569 (Jan. 13, 2026), filed by (a) “Alashore Marine Exports Private Limited, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” (b) “Krishna Kumar Kuttalam Pillai (DBA: Kay Kay Exports), . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” (c) “Nezami Rekja Seafoods Private Limited, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” (d) “S.A.Exports, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India;” and (e) “Sreeragam Exports Pvt Ltd, . . . a foreign entity located and registered in India.”