Millions return to Swiss exporters

Swiss companies are recovering significant amounts in the United States after the cancellation of some of the tariffs imposed under Donald Trump. For the leaders of exporting SMEs, the information is not just geopolitical: it can alter cash flow, cost prices, relationships with American customers, and the accounting treatment of operations already completed.

According to 20 minutes, citing the SonntagsZeitung, Stadler Rail, Victorinox, Kuhn Rikon, and ABB are among the companies concerned. The movement started from a decision by the US Supreme Court, which ruled in February that a large part of these taxes was illegal. The amounts involved far exceed individual cases: according to court documents cited by the newspaper, the United States had already refunded about 86 billion dollars of wrongly collected duties worldwide by early July, while an additional 35 billion remained under review.

The American customs bill returns to the accounts

The starting point is fiscal and customs-related: the surcharges applied to imports have increased the cost of entry for many products into the American market. The research file indicates that, on 20 February 2026, the US Supreme Court considered that the Trump administration had exceeded the powers provided by the Constitution by imposing duties on a very large share of incoming products. For Swiss companies, the most sensitive period mentioned by 20 minutes concerns the 39% surcharges applied to Swiss imports between August and December 2025.

This is not an abstract debate for an industrial SME, a utensil manufacturer, a tool brand, or a subcontractor. A customs duty paid upon entry into the United States often reverberates through the commercial chain: either the American importer absorbs the cost, or they pass it on, or they obtain a price concession from the Swiss supplier, or the margin deteriorates somewhere in between. When part of this cost is refunded, it is necessary to find out who actually bore it economically, and not just who signed the sales contract.

The published examples give an idea of the scale. Stadler Rail indicated having paid about 10 million dollars in customs duties, two-thirds of which have already been refunded. Victorinox claimed 4.5 million dollars and has already recovered more than 4 million. Kuhn Rikon obtained more than 90% of the requested amounts. ABB also confirms having received a refund, although the amount is not considered significant. For a large company, these figures can represent a significant correction. For an SME, a more modest amount can already improve a liquidity need or compensate for margin pressure.

The beneficiary is not always the Swiss supplier

The refund mechanism goes through US customs, the CBP. According to 20 minutes, the claims are filed either directly by the American subsidiaries of Swiss companies or by their commercial partners in the United States. Thermoplan specified that it was its American clients who carried out the procedures and obtained the refunds. The research file highlights the same point: the refund benefits the entity that actually paid the import duties, generally the American importer.

This distinction is essential for fiduciaries and financial managers. A Swiss company may have suffered a price drop, granted a discount, financed a commercial compensation, or accepted a reduced margin to preserve its American market. However, if the customs duty was paid by the American client, the money may first return to this client. The right to a refund, or part of it, then depends on the contracts, delivery conditions, invoices, credit notes, and exchanges that occurred at the time of the surcharge.

The first practical task is therefore to reconstruct the commercial file. It is necessary to identify the shipments concerned, the import declarations, the amounts actually paid, any re-invoicing, and the concessions granted. The fiduciary can play a central role in reconciling accounting entries, client invoices, credits, bank statements, and documents provided by American partners. Without this audit trail, the risk is twofold: leaving money with the partner when an agreement provides for sharing, or accounting too early for a product that is not yet acquired.

Cash flow: do not budget a refund as an acquired asset

The US Treasury has begun refunding the cancelled duties, with 22 billion dollars paid in May 2026 according to Boursorama. The total amount of refunds is estimated at about 166 billion dollars. A refund portal was launched on 20 April 2026, and more than 56,000 companies had registered to recover about 127 billion dollars, including interest, according to Le Club des juristes. These figures show the scale of the movement, but also the administrative burden on authorities and companies.

For a Swiss SME, the right approach is to distinguish three levels. The first is the theoretical amount: what was paid on imports falling within the scope of the decision. The second is the claimable amount: what can be documented and requested by the authorised entity. The third is the recoverable amount by the Swiss company: what actually belongs to it according to commercial agreements. These three amounts can diverge significantly.

The temptation is great to quickly integrate these refunds into a cash flow plan, especially if the company has experienced a year of margin pressures. However, caution remains necessary. Available sources indicate that some companies initially feared a lengthy, complex, or even risky procedure. 20 minutes reports that these fears seem less founded than expected: Jean-Philippe Kohl, deputy director of Swissmem, said he was surprised to see the refunds proceeding relatively simply for companies that filed a request with the customs authorities. This does not mean that all cases will be treated the same way, nor that every American partner will automatically pass on a share to the Swiss supplier.

In an SME budget, the expected refund should therefore be tracked separately from ordinary income. It can justify a more favourable cash flow scenario, but it does not replace a line of credit, strict working capital management, or a prudent renegotiation of payment terms. If the amount is significant, the manager should also anticipate the exchange rate effect: a refund in dollars does not have the same economic value depending on when it is received and converted.

Accounting and taxation: document before recognising

The accounting question is not just about when the money arrives. It is necessary to understand what it corrects. If the customs duty had increased a purchase cost, a logistical charge, or a cost price, the refund can be analysed as a reduction of this cost or as income related to a previous period, depending on how the operation was recorded. If the Swiss company had granted a discount to its American client to absorb the surcharge, a refund obtained by this client may result in a reverse credit, a price supplement, or no entry, depending on the agreement concluded.

This analysis also has tax effects. A refund received in principle increases the taxable result if it compensates for a charge that had reduced the profit, but the exact treatment depends on the file, the year concerned, and the accounting qualification retained. It is also necessary to check whether price corrections, credits, or re-invoicing have an impact on VAT, especially when the flows involve exports, subsidiaries, or ancillary services. The issue is not to seek artificial optimisation, but to avoid inconsistency between contracts, accounting, tax returns, and bank statements.

For groups or SMEs with an American subsidiary, another question arises: where is the economic benefit of the refund located? If the subsidiary paid the customs duty and bore the commercial risk, the refund may remain with it. If the Swiss parent company had compensated for this charge with a price adjustment, a rebalancing may be considered. This type of decision must be supported by contemporary documents, as an improvised correction after the fact can become difficult to defend.

Suppliers working with independent distributors must in turn review their commercial clauses. Contracts sometimes specify who bears the duties, taxes, and import fees, but remain silent on the case of a subsequent refund. In this silence, the discussion becomes as much commercial as legal. An SME that wants to preserve its American network will have an interest in seeking a documented solution, consistent with the prices actually practised during the surcharged period.

A relief, but not a return to stability

The financial relief should not overshadow the instability of the American framework. The Federal Council had examined in May 2025 the consequences of American customs policy on the Swiss economy. The research file recalls that Swiss exports to the United States had been hit with an additional flat-rate customs duty of 10%, and that the Confederation was relying in particular on proven instruments, such as compensation for reduced working hours, to cushion the effects on employment.

Since then, the landscape remains shifting. 20 minutes mentions the entry into force of new American customs duties of 12.5%. The research file also notes that the Trump administration reacted to the Supreme Court decision by imposing a new 10% surcharge on another legal basis, which fuels uncertainty for exporters. In short, the refund of an illegal tax does not guarantee a predictable environment for future contracts.

For leaders, the lesson is very concrete: every offer to the United States should include a customs analysis, a clause on duty variation, and a clear rule on the fate of a possible refund. The sales, finance, and logistics teams must speak the same language. A commercial discount granted in urgency can become a lasting loss if it is not explicitly linked to the surcharge that justified it.

American refunds offer a welcome breath of fresh air to some Swiss companies, but they mainly reward well-documented files. In a period where trade policy can change rapidly, administrative discipline becomes a competitive advantage: knowing who paid what, on what date, for which goods, and under which contract can be worth several million for large companies, and sometimes a survival margin for smaller ones.