Importers that Paid IEEPA Tariffs May Have an Opportunity for Refunds--UPDATED 03/25/2026
UPDATED: 03/25/2026: On March 20, 2026, Senior Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade issued a new order in Atmus Filtration Inc. v. United States, signaling that importers with finalized liquidations may not receive automatic refunds of IEEPA duties through this litigation — and may need to act now to preserve their rights to refunds.
Following a closed conference with counsel, Judge Eaton acknowledged that "no resolution was reached with respect to the reliquidation of entries for which liquidation has become final." (Order at 1.) He pointed importers to the protest remedy under 19 U.S.C. § 1514. This is a formal acknowledgment that finalized entries are not covered by his March 4 order directing reliquidation of entries not yet final. For those entries, importers are being directed to the now familiar method of protests of final liquidations.
The Deadline
A § 1514 protest must be filed with CBP within 180 days of liquidation. Once filed, it stops CBP from finalizing that liquidation. The earliest IEEPA tariffs — Canada, Mexico, China, and the April 2, 2025 reciprocal tariffs — are entering the liquidation window now. The clock is running.
Action Item
Importers of record who paid IEEPA duties on finalized entries should consult counsel immediately about whether to file a protest before the 180-day window closes.
We are continuing to monitor these developments. The territory remains uncharted, and the prudent course for any importer with a significant IEEPA refund claim is to file an action in the CIT now, in order to preserve all available rights.
Kaplan Gore is representing importers with significant IEEPA refund claims and will consider representing importers in the Court of International Trade on a contingency fee arrangement. Your only risk is the $400 filing fee.
UPDATED 03/05/2026: Following last month's Supreme Court decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, which held that President Trump's IEEPA tariffs were unlawful, we saw our first meaningful action in the Court of International Trade (CIT) yesterday — and it was a surprise development, to say the least.
Judge Eaton, who has been assigned all the IEEPA refund cases at the CIT, issued an order in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 26-1259 (CIT March 4, 2026) that no one actually asked for, directing CBP to liquidate "any and all" unliquidated entries subject to IEEPA duties, and to reliquidate all liquidated entries "for which liquidation is not final" "without regard to the IEEPA duties." (Order pp. 2-3.) The order would leave without an automatic refund only those importers whose entries were liquidated more than 180 days ago and who filed no protest.
We expect the government to appeal and to ask the Federal Circuit to stay the order pending that appeal. The universal injunction question alone is likely to get the Supreme Court's attention. But there are other problems for the order as well.
The CIT almost certainly has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction here — but it is also a court of sharply limited jurisdiction, and the government has real arguments that the CIT cannot order this kind of sweeping relief on so thin a record. Separately, the government will argue that automatic refunds across all importers create an unmanageable administrative burden. Whether those arguments ultimately prevail is an open question, but they are serious enough to give the Federal Circuit reason to grant a stay — and that's where things get dangerous for importers. An appellate stay while entries are approaching final liquidation isn't a hypothetical. That is the situation developing right now, and importers caught in that window could find their claims extinguished before the courts resolve anything.
A court conference on March 6 should provide some additional clarity.
We are continuing to monitor these developments. The territory remains uncharted, and the prudent course for any importer with a significant IEEPA refund claim is to file an action in the CIT now, in order to preserve all available rights.
Kaplan Gore is representing importers with significant IEEPA refund claims and will consider representing importers in the Court of International Trade on a contingency fee arrangement. Your only risk is the $400 filing fee.
UPDATED 02/20/2026: Today, in a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court (Chief Justice Roberts writing for the majority) found the IEEPA tariffs to be unlawful. The Court did not provide any guidance on refunds to importers who paid the unlawful IEEPA tariffs, but the case now heads back to the United States Court of International Trade ("CIT"), where hundreds of companies have already filed suit for refunds.
What should importers do now? No one knows how the refund process is going to work, it's unclear whether refunds would happen automatically or require separate legal action. Given these uncertainties—and the likelihood of a huge rush of claims starting today—importers affected by the IEEPA tariffs should seriously consider filing cases in the CIT now to protect their interests and secure priority for any potential refunds.
Kaplan Gore is taking IEEPA refund claims and will consider representing importers in the Court of International Trade on a contingency fee arrangement. Your only risk is the $400 filing fee.
UPDATED 02/10/2026: On January 26, 2026, Chinese automaker BYD Co. Ltd. (“BYD”) commenced an action in the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”) on behalf of four of its U.S. subsidiaries, challenging the imposition of tariffs on imports from China under the authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”). BYD's action aligns with those filed by numerous other companies operating within the United States that have sought relief in the CIT, notwithstanding that certain entries subject to the challenged tariffs have already been liquidated, while the Supreme Court's review of the legality of the IEEPA tariffs remains pending.
Notably, BYD's complaint draws attention for importers because it expressly references the CIT's recent decision in AGS Co. Automotive Solutions v. United States Customs & Border Protection, No. 25-00255, Slip Op. 25-154 (Ct. Int'l Trade Dec. 15, 2025) (discussed below), wherein the Court held that it possesses “explicit power to order reliquidation and refunds where the government has unlawfully exacted duties.” Id. at 6. Relying on that holding, BYD asserts that its ability to contest IEEPA tariffs previously paid is not barred by prior liquidation—even where such liquidation occurred more than 180 days before commencement of the action—if the Supreme Court ultimately determines that the tariffs were unlawfully imposed. Importers pursuing similar challenges before the CIT may wish to consider articulating equivalent claims in their pleadings.
What should importers do now? Many open questions remain about how refund claims for already-liquidated IEEPA tariffs would be processed if the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately overturns the tariffs, as many observers expect. It's still unclear whether refunds would happen automatically or require separate legal action. Given these uncertainties—and the likelihood of a rush of claims if the government loses—importers affected by the IEEPA tariffs should seriously consider filing cases in the CIT now to protect their interests and secure priority for any potential refunds.
UPDATED 01/13/2026: On January 8, 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection filed a response to a question posed by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) and confirmed that it will not oppose the CIT's authority to order reliquidation of entries of merchandise subject to IEEPA tariffs imposed on Brazil and India. This filing is significant because these tariffs that are not at issue in AGS Co. Automotive Solutions v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Consol. Court No. 25-00255), currently pending in the CIT, or Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., (Supreme Court No. 25-250), on which we are currently awaiting an opinion from the United States Supreme Court. Once again, this filing answers another open question on IEEPA tariffs and brings the tariffs imposed on merchandise imported from India and Brazil within the same procedural position as the other IEEPA tariffs regardless of whether the specific Executive Order was challenged in V.O.S. or AGS.
The CIT also held that it clearly has the “authority to order reliquidation in cases involving constitutional challenges to tariffs under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)” (Order at p. 8), resolving a previously open question that had driven much of the concern about the looming deadlines for challenging the liquidation of IEEPA tariffs.
What should importers do now? The CIT's decision significantly reduces uncertainty about how potential refund claims for already-liquidated IEEPA tariffs could be handled if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down the tariffs, as many expect. However, key questions remain, including whether refunds will be automatic and whether they will be available without filing suit. In light of these uncertainties and the likelihood of a surge of claims if the Government loses at the Supreme Court, importers should still strongly consider filing actions in the CIT now to hedge their risk and preserve a priority position for potential refunds.
About Kaplan Gore
The members of Kaplan Gore LLP boast decades of litigation experience. We are driven by our fierce dedication to justice and desire to tackle all types of corporate and government wrongdoing. You are not alone—we are on your side, all the way!
