Trade Court Orders Mass Refunds of Most IEEPA Duties

The court's appealable order and CBP's proffered alternative may eliminate the need to pursue some traditional administrative remedies to obtain IEEPA duty refunds, but importers may still need to file court actions and even some protests to recover fully

By Russell Semmel and Burt Braverman

03.06.26

As we advised last week, in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated President Trump's sweeping tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. § 1702, which Executive Order 14389 rescinded and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ceased enforcing as of February 24, 2026. The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) has now quickly ordered CBP to refund (with interest) most of the approximately $166 billion in duties over 330,000 importers paid under the unlawful tariffs through standing administrative processes, and CBP has proposed its own claims process—although this order is now paused and may well be appealed. Read below to learn what this means for importers who paid the duties and what you should do to protect your interest in recovering.

Post-Learning Resources Court Developments

The Supreme Court consolidated two underlying cases against the government that held the IEEPA tariffs unlawful. In the lead case, Learning Resources, the Court reviewed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before the D.C. Circuit completed its review. In the second, Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of a three-judge panel of the CIT—a trial-level federal court with exclusive subject matter and nationwide geographic jurisdiction—while vacating its universal injunction in light of Trump v. CASA, Inc., an intervening Supreme Court decision limiting the issuance of such relief, and staying its own mandate pending expected Supreme Court review. The Supreme Court then held that the CIT, not the district courts, has exclusive jurisdiction over the action because it "arises out of a law providing for … tariffs" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(1)(B), and thus affirmed the Federal Circuit's judgment alone.

On February 24, in the Federal Circuit, the V.O.S. Selections plaintiffs filed a motion, which the court granted, for immediate issuance of the mandate to allow the case to proceed in the CIT, where the plaintiffs also moved for an order directing "the government to issue … the administrative orders necessary to promptly refund all tariffs paid, with interest, under IEEPA." In the meantime, following the Supreme Court decision, other importers seeking refunds of IEEPA duties continued to file copycat actions against the government in the CIT, where at the moment nearly 2,500 refund cases beyond V.O.S. Selections are automatically stayed pending guidance from the CIT—except for one.

CIT Orders Then Pauses Refunds Through Liquidation

With the Federal Circuit's mandate issued, on March 4 the CIT lifted the stay in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States to allow for a same-day hearing on the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. Questions posed by the Court and answered by CBP indicated that the hearing would focus on CBP's position on issuing refunds through its existing "liquidation" process. As we have explained, within 10 days of importation an importer must file an "entry" declaring the amount of duties it estimates are owed and deposit those duties with CBP. In most circumstances, the importer can subsequently file a "post-summary correction" (PSC) to change its declaration, and deposit any additional duties owed. CBP then has the opportunity to verify the amount of duty, after which the entry will liquidate and CBP will issue a bill for any underpayment or, within 90 days, a refund with interest of any overpayment. Liquidation of formal entries, i.e., those generally covering goods valued at $2,500 or more, must occur within one year unless extended or suspended, but is scheduled to occur on the Friday of the week 314 days following entry, and may occur sooner upon the importer's request or if CBP reviews the entry of its own accord. For informal entries, liquidation occurs upon deposit of estimated duties. CBP retains the ability to reliquidate entries voluntarily within 90 days of the original liquidation, and an importer may request reliquidation by filing a "protest" with CBP within 180 days of liquidation.

In an order issued in Atmus immediately after the hearing and later amended, Judge Richard K. Eaton directed CBP to use this liquidation process to refund the IEEPA duties on virtually all entries nationwide, regardless of whether the importer sued. Specifically, the court ordered that all unliquidated entries on which IEEPA duties were paid be liquidated with the IEEPA duties removed, and all liquidated entries on which IEEPA duties were paid "for which liquidation is not final" be reliquidated with the IEEPA duties removed, which would cause CBP to issue a refund of those duties. Judge Eaton reasoned that the CIT's unique "national geographic jurisdiction" and "exclusive subject matter jurisdiction" exempt it from the limitation on issuing universal injunctions prescribed by the Supreme Court in CASA, and also explained that, by order of the Chief Judge, he would be the only judge assigned IEEPA duty refund cases, thereby ensuring a consistency in such decisions. "To find otherwise would be to thwart the efficient administration of justice and to deny those importers who have filed suit the efficient resolution of their claims, and to deny entirely importers who have not filed suit the benefit of the Learning Resources decision," he observed.

In advance of a scheduled closed door conference on March 6, CBP made a counterproposal to the order. In a declaration filed with the court, CBP stated that it is unable to comply with the order due to programming limitations in its Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system and the massive manpower that would be required. Instead, CBP revealed that it has been developing new functionality in ACE whereby the importer would be required to file a list of entries on which IEEPA duties were paid, and expects that functionality to be ready within 45 days. Judge Eaton subsequently suspended the order "to the extent that it directs immediate compliance" but did not withdraw it and asked for a progress report by March 12.

What Do the Atmus Order and CBP Proposal Mean?

We have advised that absent direction from the CIT, importers should avail themselves of current administrative and judicial remedies to preserve their rights to IEEPA duty refunds. The Atmus order now may obviate the need for an importer to pursue administrative remedies in order to receive a refund of IEEPA duties. In essence, the order to liquidate without IEEPA duties any unliquidated entry on which IEEPA duties were paid mimics an importer's PSC, while the order to reliquidate without IEEPA duties any nonfinally liquidated entry on which IEEPA duties were paid mimics an importer's protest. CBP's proposal would operate as a watered-down version of a PSC or protest, having the same ultimate effect while still requiring action on the importer's part. But there are reasons for importers not to celebrate just yet.

We caution, first and foremost, that nothing is final yet. Despite the pause on the order, the government may appeal Atmus—and might already have done so by the time you read this advisory. In fact, during the hearing, the government moved Judge Eaton to stay the order pending appeal, which the Judge rejected from the bench. The extent of relief that the CIT can issue after CASA is untested, and the administration sent mixed signals on whether it will make the refund process easy, to the point of strongly opposing the issuance of the Federal Circuit mandate. The CIT might also not ultimately accept CBP's proposal as sufficient, given that unlike the order it requires affirmative action by importers.

Further, the order may not cover every entry correctable administratively. There is ambiguity in the word "final" in the language of the order, which may mean either beyond the 90-day voluntary reliquidation period or beyond the 180-day protest period. The former interpretation would be more consistent with the context of the order, construing it to force CBP to do what it already retains the power to do on its own without importer action, but would still require importers to file protests for entries liquidated between 91 and 180 days prior. This is how CBP also appears to read the order according to its declaration, which references the volume of entries beyond the voluntary reliquidation period. The latter, more favorable interpretation would be more consistent with case law on the concept of final liquidation and cover all entries correctable by protest. And lastly, although the government previously stipulated that it would treat all the IEEPA tariffs the same, the order as amended appears not to cover the tariffs imposed on Brazil and India, which unlike the “trafficking” and “reciprocal” tariffs were not explicitly considered in Learning Resources.

How Importers Should Proceed

Thus, unless and until the Atmus order becomes clear and final or CBP implements a new court-approved claims process, it would be prudent for importers to continue to consider pursuing administrative remedies as previously advised. Further, regardless of whether the order as written stands or CBP implements its proposed system, an importer should still consider filing a refund case in the CIT. Before proceeding, an importer should access its import data through the ACE portal to see whether it has paid IEEPA duties on any entry, how much it has paid, the liquidation date and status of those entries, and what the present deadlines are. It should also confirm that it has applied to receive refunds electronically through ACE, as required by CBP beginning last month.

Administratively, for any entry on which IEEPA duties were assessed that liquidated within the past 180 days, an importer should prepare to file a protest indicating that the IEEPA tariffs are no longer applicable. For any unliquidated entry on which IEEPA duties were deposited, and which is accepted and fully paid, an importer (through its customs broker) should immediately attempt to file a PSC indicating that the IEEPA tariffs are no longer applicable. A PSC is not an option after the earlier of 300 days post-entry (unless liquidation has been extended or suspended) or within 15 days of liquidation; in that case, an importer should request an extension of liquidation. If CBP does not accept the PSC, for example, because the entry is under CBP review or liquidation is not extended, the importer must wait until liquidation and proceed accordingly.

Judicially, a refund case in the CIT is the only way to claim refunds for entries beyond the protest period, which neither the order nor CBP's proposal addresses. And if the order is overturned, we note again that the government may argue (and the courts may agree) that the issue of whether IEEPA tariffs apply continues to be nonprotestable because CBP did not have discretion over whether to impose them in the first place, meaning that only a court action could compel duty refunds on liquidated entries for a given importer at all.

New Challenge to Replacement Tariffs

In related news, two dozen state attorneys general have now challenged the Trump Administration's replacement for the IEEPA tariffs in the CIT. Our last advisory reported that in the immediate wake of Learning Resources, President Trump also imposed via Proclamation 11012 a new 10% worldwide tariff that took effect on February 24, at the moment the IEEPA tariffs ceased. This action claimed authority under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. § 2132, which authorizes the President to impose a tariff for up to 150 days to address a "balance-of-payments" crisis and had never been used before. The complaint filed on March 5 in Oregon v. Trump alleges that the Section 122 tariff is unlawful because, among other things, this term does not mean a mere trade deficit and such a crisis does not and cannot exist under the floating rate exchange system in place since 1976. In the event that the Section 122 tariff—which Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said he expects to be increased to the statutory maximum 15% as soon as March 6—is also found unlawful, resulting duty refunds would be available accordingly. And if the IEEPA tariff saga teaches importers anything, it's to maintain good records of duties paid and to stay vigilant for any deadlines on seeking refunds of those duties.

+++