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.

Truckload freight rates are favoring carriers after a long hiatus, according to the March Signal Report, which was recently issued by DAT iQ, the analytics subsidiary of DAT Freight & Analytics, with the firm explaining that market tightening, since December, “is real and will continue.” The firm explained that, in February, dry van and temperature-controlled markets experienced their largest three-month spot rates increase going back to Spring 2020, coming in at 21% and 13%, respectively, with the caveat that this data does not extend through February 28, when the Iran conflict began, while also noting that the conflict has, and will continue to, send rates up and also continue to trim down capacity. The pricing data in this report is based on actual loads moved by large retailers, wholesalers, manufacturers, and other industry stakeholders in DAT iQ’s shipper consortium. The March Signal Report issued the following for February: Looking ahead, the 12-month forecast from Dat iQ expects dry van contract and spot rates to head up by 8% and 12%, respectively, with the company telling shippers that are still operating on 2025 pricing, the window to secure favorable pricing terms is “probably closed,” coming in before the fuel cost gains start to appear in the numbers. In an interview with LM, DAT Chief of Analytics Ken Adamo that there are a few key things to consider in looking at contract and spot rates, in terms of where things may be headed. “On the spot side, there is seasonality coming up and depending on how the spring and summer shipping season go, there are going to be some seasonal effects there,” he said. “I do think there is some upward mobility in spot rates, for sure. But we have this interesting conundrum where spot rates are up about 20% year-over-year, and New Rate Differential is up 7%-to-10%, depending on what sector you look at. But paid contract rates are dead flat. That creates this massive amount of tension, where the longer spot rates stay elevated, it is eventually going to drag the paid contract rates up, and normally that only lags by a couple of months. We are probably at a couple of quarters now and it has not pulled the contract rates up.” One reason for that, he said, is that a lot of the spot market disruption was acute, in that it was due to weather and fuel, leaving shippers not keen on making long-term business decisions, nor upsetting their entire routing guide until they see what the market looks like later, when the weather disruptions are not as severe and the Iran conflict is possibly over. To that end, as an example, Adamo said that some large shippers are postponing some of their bid events until later in the year, and the ones that signed deals in the fourth quarter are willing to absorb a spot market loss somewhat, as opposed to doing a rebid during a time of volatility. “A large Fortune 500 shipper would explain right now it is struggling to understand fuel, it did not budget for this,” said Adamo. “And 30% of a shipper’s freight spend has gone up by 50% in rough numbers. Honestly, the rates they are paying in the spot market right now is probably the least concerning. You are seeing bids now from the first quarter that are coming in 7%-to-10% higher, which serves as a good sign of things normalizing.” Looking ahead, Adamo said that the question remains in regards to if spot rates remain high enough to drag contract rates all the way up or are they likely to meet somewhere in the middle this summer, with DAT’s baseline contract rate forecast calling for contract rates to come in around 10%-to-12% higher annually. And while it may be too late to get more favorable terms, he explained it is not likely there will be a penalty for waiting one quarter, which is what is happening with shippers pushing bids out. “There is a higher probability it goes down a little bit rather than go up a little more,” he said. “They are sort of viewing it like they are going to wait it out and see if this rally peters out a little bit post-spring. But some of these big-box retailers have been running bids in the second quarter for decades—and for some of them to push this into the third quarter during the buildup to the retail shipping peak is a pretty big gamble on their part, both in terms of internal process and also where the market may be headed. A March 2026 rate snapshot from DAT, not in the DAT iQ report, found that March dry van, reefer, and flatbed rates came in at $1.99 (up 1.5% annually), $2.30 (flat annually) and $2.52 (down 1.6% annually), respectively, with spot rates, for the three modes, at $1.81 (up 13% annually), $2.19 (up 17.7% annually), and $2.23 (up 7.7% annually).