Report release and publisher background

Waterloo, Ontario-based Descartes, a provider of on-demand logistics software delivered as a service, has published the latest edition of its Global Shipping Report. The release is the report’s 56th edition, tracing the series back to its first issue in August 2021.

March U.S.-bound container volumes and rankings

March U.S.-bound container imports totaled 2,353,611 TEU (Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units). That level represented a 12.4% increase from the prior month and a 1.1% decline versus March a year earlier, marking the fourth-highest monthly total on record.

February comparison and broader volume trends

In its prior edition, Descartes had reported that February imports fell 9.7% from January and were down 6.5% compared with the same month a year earlier. The firm said March’s rebound is consistent with normal seasonality after February’s dip, and reflects steady underlying demand amid ongoing policy and geopolitical uncertainties.

The report also noted that volumes remain well above pre-pandemic levels, up 32.3% relative to March 2019, while year-to-date imports through March were down 4.8% versus the prior year.

Risks, responses and industry commentary

Jackson Wood, Director of Industry Strategy at Descartes, warned that escalating tensions in the Middle East, changes in U.S. tariff policy and shifting global trade dynamics are adding volatility to routing, costs and sourcing choices. He said importers are responding by diversifying suppliers beyond traditional trade lanes, adjusting routing strategies to mitigate geopolitical risk, and using data and technology to make faster, better-informed decisions in a more complex trade environment.

China-origin imports and Lunar New Year timing

Containers arriving in the U.S. from China totaled 711,652 TEU in March. That figure was 2.3% lower than January and down 1.1% year over year. It was also 30.4% below the peak of 1,022,913 TEU recorded in July 2024.

China’s share of total U.S. imports stood at 30.2% in March, a 4.6 percentage-point decline from February. Descartes observed that the drop in China-origin volumes may partly reflect lingering effects from the 2026 Lunar New Year, which ran from February 17 through March 3; typical transit times of 30 to 50 days can shift production slowdowns into March arrival data.

Top 10 source countries and notable month-to-month movers

Imports from the top 10 countries of origin rose 8.2% sequentially in March, an aggregate gain of 122,671 TEU. Two countries accounted for much of that increase:

• Italy, up 74.5%, adding 25,565 TEU
• Thailand, up 25.6%, adding 24,682 TEU

Additional report items

The Descartes Global Shipping Report contained other key findings beyond the items summarized here. The excerpt provided did not include those additional specifics.

Supreme Court decision and immediate effects

More than a month after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down most of the Trump-era tariffs imposed under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, companies across industries are taking varied steps to recover duties they paid while hoping for a workable refund process.

Who has sued and the scale of litigation

Only a small portion of the roughly 300,000 companies affected by the IEEPA tariffs have initiated suits in the U.S. Court of International Trade, attorneys say. Those that have tend to be larger firms with heavier legal resources or larger sums at stake, according to Jonathan Todd, an international trade attorney at Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff.

Since the Supreme Court first heard oral arguments in the tariff case on Nov. 5, 2025, Manufacturing Dive research shows more than 3,000 cases involving tariffs, duties, fees or related taxes have been filed in the Court of International Trade, though not all are IEEPA refund claims.

Administrative claims and the CAPE portal timeline

Many companies have filed administrative claims with U.S. Customs and Border Protection or are awaiting refunds through CAPE, CBP’s Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries digital portal that was scheduled to launch in April. Other businesses are holding off because they are uncertain about the right course of action.

"I have a number of clients who want to take every action they can, and those tend to file lawsuits," Todd told Manufacturing Dive. "Others are waiting because they see this as an evolving situation that we will have greater clarity on soon."

Todd also said some clients avoid seeking refunds because of administrative burdens or for "political and commercial reasons," including fear of potential retribution from the Trump administration.

Who is entitled to refunds and the risk of downstream disputes

Complications arise because CBP’s CAPE system recognizes the importer of record as the party entitled to refunds, which may not be the company that ultimately bore the tariff cost. Importers frequently pass tariff expenses down the supply chain, creating questions about whether downstream purchasers or suppliers that absorbed costs are also entitled to recoveries.

Those tensions have already produced legal conflict: some companies that publicly sought refunds on behalf of customers have since faced class action suits, according to attorneys working on these matters.

Limitations of CAPE and criticisms of the approach

Attorneys warn CAPE’s first iteration may not handle all refund scenarios, particularly refunds tied to duty assessments that become final after CBP’s post-entry auditing process. When importers deposit duties, CBP has nearly a year to finalize assessments and determine whether additional duties are owed or an overpayment occurred.

While the Court of International Trade has ordered CBP to begin issuing refunds for finalized duty assessments, CBP has indicated CAPE’s initial release will not process refunds for those final assessments.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and other Democrats urged CBP in a letter to make refunds automatic rather than requiring an importer opt in, arguing that small businesses should not have to take extra steps to recover payments that amounted to unlawful tariffs.

Business sentiment and survey findings

A KPMG survey of business leaders found 62% expect to receive a tariff refund. Within the broader respondent group, 28% said they would actively pursue a refund, 25% remained undecided and 9% said they would not pursue refunds.

Brian Higgins, U.S. sector leader for industrial manufacturing at KPMG U.S., told Manufacturing Dive that many firms remain in a "trying-to-figure-it-out" phase because the mechanics of refunds are still unclear. He added that importers who filed suits before the Supreme Court’s Feb. 20 decision may be best positioned to recover because the government will have limited capacity and early filers may be prioritized.

CBP has said it expects up to a 45-day window between refund submission and delivery, though details and timelines for individual claimants remain uncertain.

Practical steps companies should take now

International trade attorneys advise firms to prepare thoroughly so they can request refunds when CBP’s portal is ready. Kelsey Christensen, an attorney at Clark Hill, said companies should first determine what they are owed and assemble all supporting entry documentation.

She urged businesses to "organize, organize, organize" by identifying imports exposed to IEEPA tariffs, gathering entry paperwork and being ready to submit refund requests when the portal opens. Companies should also be prepared to provide supporting documents and enroll banking details so refunds can be made electronically; CBP stopped issuing paper refund checks in February.

Christensen noted the Supreme Court’s opinion did not address the mechanics of refunds, but that is not unusual: courts such as the Court of International Trade often define the details of remedy processes after broader legal rulings.

Broader tariff landscape and financial cautions

Attorneys caution businesses not to treat prospective refunds as pure windfalls. "The No. 1 thing that everyone should do in my view is have a conversation with their accountants," Todd said, noting refunded amounts might not be available dollar-for-dollar for the claimant.

Meanwhile, the broader tariff environment remains unsettled. The Trump administration has implemented new tariffs and adjusted existing levies on items such as steel, aluminum and copper, and frequently changes tariff policies even as several measures face legal challenges. Experts say that even if companies secure IEEPA refunds, they will likely confront additional tariff issues under other authorities.

Source and licensing information

This article was based on reporting by Jeffrey Kinney for Supply Chain Dive and was licensed through the DiveMarketplace by Industry Dive. For licensing questions, contact legal@industrydive.com.

March Signal Report overview from DAT iQ

DAT iQ’s March Signal Report shows truckload pricing shifting in favor of carriers after a prolonged period of softness. The analytics arm of DAT Freight & Analytics says market tightening that began in December is tangible and expected to continue.

February spot-rate jumps and geopolitical caveat

In February, DAT iQ recorded sharp three-month spot rate increases in two key segments: dry van spot rates rose 21% and temperature-controlled (reefer) spot rates rose 13%, marking their largest three-month gains since spring 2020. The firm notes this dataset does not extend beyond February 28, the date when the Iran conflict began, and that the conflict has already pushed rates higher and will likely further reduce available capacity.

Source of pricing data and methodology

The pricing measures in the Signal Report are derived from actual loads moved by members of DAT iQ’s shipper consortium, which includes large retailers, wholesalers, manufacturers and other supply-chain stakeholders. These transactional data points form the basis of the reported spot and contract trends.

DAT iQ 12-month outlook for dry van rates

Looking forward, DAT iQ’s 12-month projection anticipates upward movement in dry van rates: contract rates are expected to rise about 8% and spot rates about 12% over the year. The company cautions that shippers still operating on 2025 pricing likely have missed the best window to lock in favorable terms ahead of rising fuel costs.

Ken Adamo’s analysis of spot versus contract dynamics

DAT Chief of Analytics Ken Adamo highlighted several dynamics affecting contract and spot pricing. He pointed to upcoming seasonal influences that could lift spot rates during spring and summer and noted tension between elevated spot levels and flat paid contract rates.

Key empirical points he cited include:

• Spot rates are roughly 20% higher year-over-year.
• New Rate Differential (the gap between negotiated and spot pricing) is higher by about 7% to 10%, depending on sector.
• Paid contract rates have remained essentially flat, creating pressure that typically pulls contracts upward after a short lag; that lag has stretched from months to quarters this cycle.

Why shippers are postponing repricing and bid events

Adamo explained that much of the recent spot volatility has been acute and driven by weather and fuel spikes, making shippers reluctant to change long-term routing guides or renegotiate contracts during transient disruptions. As a result, numerous large shippers have delayed bid events, and those that agreed deals in the fourth quarter may prefer to absorb short-term spot losses rather than trigger a rebid amid volatility.

He offered a rough example of the pressure on shippers: one large Fortune 500 shipper is struggling to account for higher fuel costs it did not budget for, and approximately 30% of that shipper’s freight spend has increased about 50% in rough terms. At the same time, first-quarter bids are returning 7% to 10% higher than prior rounds, which Adamo interprets as an encouraging sign of normalization.

Near-term trajectory and strategic considerations

Adamo framed the near-term question as whether spot rates will remain elevated enough to pull contract rates up fully or whether the two will converge midway during the summer. DAT’s baseline contract forecast calls for contract rates to land roughly 10% to 12% higher year-over-year.

He also said that for shippers delaying bids into the next quarter, the odds favor modest easing rather than further escalation, so waiting one quarter is unlikely to incur a major penalty. However, some big-box retailers that have historically run bidding in the second quarter face a significant operational gamble if they push those events into the third quarter ahead of the retail shipping peak.

March 2026 rate snapshot outside the iQ report

Separately, DAT’s March 2026 snapshot (not included in the DAT iQ Signal Report) showed the following nominal contract rates by mode:

• Dry van contract rate: $1.99 per mile, up 1.5% year-over-year
• Reefer contract rate: $2.30 per mile, flat year-over-year
• Flatbed contract rate: $2.52 per mile, down 1.6% year-over-year

DAT reported corresponding spot rates for March 2026 as:

• Dry van spot: $1.81 per mile, up 13% year-over-year
• Reefer spot: $2.19 per mile, up 17.7% year-over-year
• Flatbed spot: $2.23 per mile, up 7.7% year-over-year

Implications for shippers and carriers

The combined signals from DAT iQ point to a tightening market in which carriers are regaining pricing power, spot markets show marked strength, and contract rates may follow if elevated spot levels persist. Shippers face strategic choices about whether to rebid now or wait for potential moderation after spring, weighing near-term cost exposure against operational timing and the risk of higher rates during peak shipping periods.