I’m speaking with Rohit Laila, a veteran operator who’s spent decades across customs brokerage, parcel operations and end-to-end supply chains. With CBP’s new portal open for claims tied to the now-defunct IEEPA tariffs, he’s helping shippers and carriers navigate the crush of filings, the 80-day eligibility window in phase one, and the 60–90 day refund timeline. In this conversation, he breaks down how teams are validating claims at scale, coordinating across customs, finance and customer service, and preparing for later phases as millions of imports move through the funnel.
With CBP’s refund portal now live and first-phase claims limited to entries liquidated in the prior 80 days, how are you triaging eligible records, what data gaps are you encountering, and what step-by-step process are you using to validate claim readiness at scale?
We start with a date-range filter keyed to the 80-day liquidation window, then run an automated cross-check on entry numbers, HTS lines, tariff indicators, and evidence of IEEPA duty payment. The most common gaps are mismatched importer of record details versus payor identity, missing proof of payment, and incomplete commercial invoice data. Our flow is: ingest broker/carrier files, normalize to a common schema, verify the original payor, attach payment proof, and perform a final exception review before submission. A daily huddle flags edge cases so we don’t lose time, because the clock on that 80-day slice is unforgiving and every eligible entry we miss now could push recovery months out.
Refunds are projected to take roughly 60–90 days after acceptance. How are you managing customer cash-flow expectations, what SLAs are you setting internally, and how do you escalate when refunds exceed the window?
We frame the recovery as a two-stage cash cycle—acceptance first, then a 60–90 day CBP disbursement runway—and we show that timeline on every dashboard and statement. Internally, we target submission within a few business days of readiness and daily reconciliation against CBP acknowledgments to keep the clock visible. If a case nears day 60 without movement, we open a proactive inquiry and escalate through our CBP liaison channel, documenting each touch so customers see action, not platitudes. When day 90 looms, finance prepares contingency communications that explain status and next steps, because surprises are worse than delays.
When a carrier served as the customs broker, you plan to file on customers’ behalf. How are you verifying the original payor, resolving conflicting records, and documenting the audit trail to withstand disputes or post-refund reviews?
We triangulate the original payor using broker statements, carrier billing, and customer remittance records; the name that actually funded the duty controls entitlement. Conflicts—like a customer rebilled by a third party—trigger an exception queue where we secure attestations and supporting invoices that anchor the money trail. Every claim package includes entry data, proof of IEEPA duty, who paid, and who is authorized to receive funds, stored with immutable timestamps. That audit spine is what protects us if someone challenges entitlement after refunds land.
For shipments where the carrier was the importer of record, what operational changes are required to request and retrieve refunds efficiently, and how are you aligning customs, finance, and customer service teams to avoid bottlenecks?
We created a dedicated importer-of-record cell that owns claim assembly, submission, and funds application end-to-end. Customs handles eligibility and filing, finance manages receipt and disbursement, and customer service translates milestones into clear updates. A shared queue with hard handoffs prevents “swirl,” and daily standups catch blockers before they age. Because carriers like UPS noted they can’t issue refunds until CBP pays, our finance team matches receipts to claims the same day to avoid any lag on the return to the original payor.
Where customers were the importer of record and may file directly, what guidance, file formats, and validation checks do you recommend so their independent submissions don’t delay carrier-filed claims tied to adjacent entries?
We give customers a concise kit: field-level templates, sample proofs of payment, and a checklist that mirrors CBP’s acceptance criteria. We also ask them to notify us of any directly filed entries and share the CBP acceptance IDs so we can de-duplicate across adjacent shipments. Basic validations—entry number format, liquidation date within the 80 days, IEEPA duty flagged—prevent simple rejections. Clean data on their side keeps the pipeline unclogged on ours, especially with the early surge of claims.
DHL intends to auto-file for eligible entries in phase one. What automation logic flags eligibility, how do you manage exceptions that require human review, and what metrics will you track to prove accuracy and speed?
Eligibility logic is rule-based: liquidation within the 80-day window, IEEPA tariff presence, valid entry number, and a verified original payor on file. The system shunts anything ambiguous—conflicting payor records, missing proof, odd HTS notes—into an analyst queue. We track submission cycle time, exception rate, and CBP acceptance rate as our accuracy proxy, then measure the 60–90 day post-acceptance clock to demonstrate speed. The aim is high auto-pass with zero compromise on entitlement, since DHL has said it will automatically file in phase one for eligible entries.
On day one, tens of thousands of parties submitted claims covering millions of imports. How does this surge affect queue times, what capacity modeling did you use, and how are you coordinating with CBP to mitigate systemic slowdowns?
With over 55,000 parties submitting for more than 4 million imports on day one, we assumed elongated CBP response times and built buffers into our SLAs. We modeled capacity using arrival spikes, not averages, and staffed accordingly with swing teams for exceptions. Our coordination with CBP focuses on batching like-for-like submissions to reduce back-and-forth and scheduling inquiries so we’re not adding noise during peak hours. The watchwords are patience and predictability—communicate early, keep files clean, and respect the volume CBP is processing.
Refunds will be returned to the party that originally paid duties. How are you handling cases with chargebacks, duty re-billing, or third-party payors, and what documentation do you require to adjudicate contested entitlement?
We start with the principle echoed by the carriers: return funds to the party that bore the cost. When chargebacks or re-billing muddy the waters, we trace the payment chain to who actually funded the duty at the time and require invoices, remittance proofs, and any credit memos. Third-party payors must present authorization from the consignee or importer tying them to the transaction; without it, we park the claim. This structure protects against misdirected refunds and aligns with the “original payor” standard stated by FedEx, UPS, and DHL.
What controls are you deploying to prevent duplicate filings, fraud, or erroneous over-claims, and how will you reconcile differences between CBP determinations, broker records, and customer invoices?
Unique entry IDs, payor fingerprints, and hash-matching on document sets stop duplicates before they leave our system. Fraud controls flag altered invoices or inconsistent duty amounts, sending them to a separate review path. When CBP determinations diverge from broker or customer records, we reconcile line-by-line, prioritize CBP’s official stance, and update our submission logic so the same error never repeats. Every discrepancy becomes a learning loop to keep the integrity of the program intact.
Many shippers want line-of-sight into claim status. What customer-facing visibility will you provide (dashboards, milestones, notifications), how frequently will you update statuses, and what information will you share when a claim is rejected?
We offer dashboards with milestones from intake to CBP acceptance to refund received, alongside the 60–90 day timer. Statuses refresh daily, and we push notifications at acceptance, at mid-journey checkpoints, and when funds post. Rejections come with the exact missing or mismatched data, the action required, and a guided path to resubmit. Visibility calms nerves when the system is handling millions of imports and the queues feel long.
Are you charging fees for filing or recovery services, how are those fees structured, and how do you communicate ROI to small and mid-sized shippers versus enterprise accounts?
We use a transparent model: a modest processing fee for standard, clean claims and a capped service fee for complex exceptions. For small and mid-sized shippers, we emphasize recovered dollars back in the door within the 60–90 day window and how we shoulder the filing load. For enterprise accounts, the story is scale—de-duplication, audit defense, and accelerated submission across thousands of entries. Either way, the fee is anchored to demonstrable recovery and time saved during a heavy-traffic phase.
How are you handling accounting treatment—revenue recognition reversals, duty recoveries, and potential interest—so financial statements stay accurate, and what lessons from prior duty drawback or tariff unwind programs inform your approach?
We book receivables only after CBP acceptance, not at submission, and we match receipts to the original payor, as the carriers have committed to do. Any reversals or credits follow the original invoice lineage so ledgers don’t fragment. Prior unwind programs taught us to treat interest separately and to maintain an audit-ready trail from entry to refund disbursement. Clean sub-ledgers and disciplined cutoffs prevent month-end surprises when large batches arrive near the 60–90 day mark.
What are the main risks you foresee in the next quarter—data mismatch, documentation gaps, staffing—and what contingency plans, playbooks, or escalation paths are you putting in place to keep refund cycles on track?
Data mismatch is the top risk, so we built pre-checks that mirror CBP’s validations and a second set for payor identity. Documentation gaps get a templated outreach with examples so customers know exactly what to provide. On staffing, we cross-train analysts to flex between exception review and customer updates, and we hold back a reserve team for spikes like the day-one surge of over 55,000 parties. Escalation playbooks define timelines for CBP inquiries so we intervene before the 90-day horizon.
Once phase one is complete, how will you scale for later phases, what process improvements will persist after refunds wind down, and how might this reshape your long-term customs brokerage and importer-of-record strategies?
We’ll lift-and-shift the automation, expanding eligibility rules as CBP opens later phases and layering in more nuanced checks. The lasting improvements will be cleaner data standards with customers and tighter broker-carrier-finance collaboration—those don’t fade when refunds end. Strategically, this pushes us to consolidate importer-of-record responsibilities where it simplifies entitlement and to keep auto-filing where it’s proven, like DHL’s phase-one approach for eligible entries. The muscle we build here will carry into any future tariff changes or drawback cycles.
Do you have any advice for our readers?
Gather your evidence now—entry documents, invoices, and proof of who actually paid—and map each claim to the 80-day liquidation window to avoid missing out. Tell your carrier or broker which entries you’re filing directly so they can de-duplicate, and expect the 60–90 day runway after CBP accepts your submission. Don’t let perfection stall you; prioritize the cleanest claims first, then work the exceptions with a checklist. Most of all, keep communication steady—whether you were one of the 55,000 parties on day one or just getting started, clarity is your best lever in a crowded system.
