Overview
On March 4, 2026, following the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Trump administration's IEEPA tariffs, the Court of International Trade (CIT) took on the issue of IEEPA tariff refunds. In Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, Judge Richard K. Eaton ordered US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate or reliquidate all entries that are "not final," without regard to IEEPA duties. Judge Eaton further held that the CIT retains jurisdiction to order CBP to issue IEEPA tariff refunds to all importers––i.e., not just those that are parties to the case before the court.
As described further below, Judge Eaton's March 4 order is currently suspended. However, assuming that it is reinstated following ongoing proceedings, and barring this decision being overturned on appeal by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or a change in position from the Trump Administration, it means that importers would not need to individually file a formal protest with CBP or a complaint at the CIT to receive refunds for IEEPA tariffs.
On March 6, 2026, CBP submitted an initial plan outlining an expedited tariff refund system. CBP stated that it intended to launch the system within 45 days (i.e., by April 20, 2026). CBP also noted that, starting February 6, 2026, refunds will only be issued electronically. Accordingly, importers should ensure they are enrolled in the Automated Clearinghouse (ACH) system to facilitate receipt of refunds once the system is operational.
In light of practical constraints posed by CBP processing systems preventing the effective review and processing of significant quantities of refund requests described by CBP in a sworn declaration to the CIT, Judge Eaton issued a separate order suspending the March 4 order and clarifying that the remedy therein need not be implemented immediately, pending CBP's development of a specialized refund process. Judge Eaton also directed CBP to file a series of declarations reporting on its progress toward implementing a streamlined refund mechanism.
On March 12, 2026, CBP filed its first declaration updating Judge Eaton on the development of its refund mechanism within the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), called the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) module.
Through the CAPE claim portal, the importer of record, or an authorized broker, can submit IEEPA refund requests, referred to as CAPE Declarations. The filer will upload a Comma-Separated Values (CSV) file, identifying the entry summaries for which IEEPA refunds are requested. The system will automatically remove any IEEPA HTS numbers from the entry summaries and then will conduct normal ACE duty calculation validations to confirm the duties owed. Essentially, duties will be calculated as if the IEEPA duties had never been declared. CAPE will then liquidate or reliquidate the validated entries on a scheduled date and process refunds electronically through ACE to the designated bank account.
Importantly, CBP noted that the initial phase of the CAPE release will not support processing of (1) unliquidated entries subject to antidumping and countervailing duty orders, (2) entries with an ACE liquidation status of "suspended," "extended," or "under review," (3) entries for goods withdrawn from bonded warehouses or foreign trade zones, or (4) entries subject to drawback claims. CBP anticipates expanding CAPE functionality in subsequent phases to address these more complicated scenarios.
Following the filing, Judge Eaton issued an order confirming that CBP is making satisfactory progress toward developing an IEEPA tariff refund program and continued the suspension of the March 4 order. Judge Eaton also ordered CBP to file a second progress report by March 19, 2026.
On March 19, 2026, CBP filed its second declaration updating Judge Eaton on the status of its refund mechanism. CBP did not provide commentary on whether the mechanism would be ready for use by the April 20 deadline; rather, CBP stated that the claim portal, validation and event history tracking, review and liquidation/reliquidation, and refund components are between 45 and 80% completed and will continue to be subject to ongoing testing and development.
In an order issued on March 20, Judge Eaton amended the March 4 order to clarify that it: (1) covered all IEEPA tariffs, including those on imports from Brazil and India, and (2) did not cover de minimis entries, which are being litigated separately before the CIT in Axle of Dearborn Inc. v. Department of Commerce. Judge Eaton also continued the suspension of the March 4 order while directing CBP to file a third status report by March 31, 2026.
Open Questions
- Scope of "not final" entries: Judge Eaton's March 4 order indicates that, upon completion of the tariff refund system, CBP will be directed to liquidate or reliquidate all "not final" entries. Neither Judge Eaton nor CBP have provided further clarification as to what constitutes a "not final" entry.
- Reliquidation of "final" entries: In his March 20 order, Judge Eaton acknowledged that there is no resolution among the parties on whether entries that have become "final" will be reliquidated. Instead, he indicated that importers can preserve their right to refunds by filing protests with CBP.
- Refunds for entries not covered by CAPE: The first phase of the CAPE release does not support the processing of certain categories of entries. It is not yet clear when, or how, entries subject to AD/CVD orders, with a "suspended," "extended," or "under review" liquidation status, withdrawn from bonded warehouses or foreign trade zones, or subject to drawback claims will be eligible for refunds.
- Potential for appeal or policy change: It is important to note that this order could still be appealed to the Federal Circuit, which would likely freeze the development and implementation of the tariff refund process. The Trump administration could also change its position regarding tariff refunds.
Next Steps for Importers
While Judge Eaton's order – assuming that it is reinstated and remains in effect – means that importers do not need to file a separate complaint at the CIT or submit a protest with CBP, there remains uncertainty surrounding the operation and timing of CBP's refund process, the potential for appellate review, and the scope and treatment of "final" versus "not final" entries. As such, importers seeking to protect the maximum number of entries eligible for a refund should consider filing their own complaint at the CIT and filing a protest with CBP to guard against potential gaps in CAPE refund coverage. Because it remains unclear when entries will become "final," importers with 2025 liquidations, in particular, should file protests with CBP in a timely manner in accordance with Judge Eaton's guidance.
Steptoe's International Trade team is closely monitoring the refund process. If you need support evaluating what these developments mean for your business, or support with filing a CIT complaint or CBP protest, our team is ready to help.
