Amazon has disclosed that it has received ₹5,724 crore ($600 million) in tariff refunds after the United States Supreme Court ruled that many of President Donald Trump’s levies were illegal, and said it expects to return some of that cash to customers.
Amazon confirms ₹5,724 crore tariff windfall on earnings call
The disclosure came during , where chief financial officer Brian Olsavsky addressed the company’s position on the refund process for the first time in detail.
“We are participating in the tariff refund process and, as I mentioned earlier, we received approximately $600 million in Q2,” Olsavsky told analysts.
The refunds stem from a Supreme Court decision handed down in February, which invalidated tariffs that Trump had imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. The ruling compelled the federal government to reimburse companies that had imported goods into the US subject to those levies.
Why Amazon’s refund is smaller than expected
Despite its scale as one of the world’s largest importers and retailers, Amazon’s payout has been comparatively modest. Olsavsky attributed this to the company’s own , explaining that Amazon had worked to order and stockpile inventory ahead of the tariffs taking effect, thereby limiting its exposure.
Amazon’s CFO also pointed to a structural reason behind the limited sum. “Second, we are not the importer of record for the large majority of items sold in our store,” Olsavsky said.
This distinction matters considerably, given that outside sellers account for more than 60% of goods sold on Amazon’s marketplace, and it is typically those third-party sellers, rather than Amazon itself, who bear formal responsibility for import duties on goods brought in from overseas.
Many of those sellers had been forced to raise prices as a direct consequence of the levies and have since lodged their own applications for reimbursement.
Political pressure and a consumer lawsuit
Amazon’s handling of the tariff issue has drawn scrutiny well beyond financial analysts. In April, Trump told CNBC he would “remember” companies that declined to pursue refunds, when questioned on whether firms such as Amazon might be holding back out of concern over antagonising him.
The retailer had previously declined to state publicly whether it intended to seek reimbursement at all. That silence prompted a class-action lawsuit filed by consumers in a federal court in Seattle in May, which argued that shoppers were owed compensation for having paid tariff-inflated prices, and alleged that Amazon was avoiding the refund process in order to “curry favour” with Trump.
Tensions between and the White House over tariffs are not new. In April 2025, the company found itself at odds with the administration after reports emerged that it planned to display the cost of Trump’s tariffs alongside certain product listings on its site.
Trump is reported to have personally telephoned Amazon founder and executive chairman Jeff Bezos to object to the proposal, according to NBC News.
How Amazon plans to repay affected customers
Olsavsky said Amazon would return a portion of the refunded sums directly to shoppers, though only in cases where a clear link between the tariff and the price paid can be established.
“We’ve identified a limited set of circumstances where we can trace that we’ve passed specific import charges onto customers, and when we receive those refunds, we will proactively contact affected customers and automatically issue refunds to them,” he said.
Beyond those traceable instances, Amazon indicated the remaining funds would be absorbed into broader pricing strategy rather than issued as individual repayments. “Otherwise, like other large retailers, we’ll utilise refunds to continue to invest in low prices for customers,” Olsavsky said.
Apple also benefits from tariff reversal
Amazon is not alone in gaining from the Supreme Court’s ruling. Apple disclosed on the same day that its earnings per share had been lifted by 5%, equivalent to 11 cents (approximately ₹10.49), as a result of tariff refunds recorded in the third quarter, underlining the broader financial ripple effect of the court’s decision across major US importers.