Towards a New Paradigm for IEEPA Tariff Refunds

14 April 2026

Overview and Recent Developments

On March 27, 2026, Judge Richard K. Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued an amending order in the case Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States (Court No. 26-01259). The measure follows the landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of February 20, 2026 (Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287), which declared unlawful the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), holding that such broad tariff authority requires an explicit legislative delegation from Congress (1).

In light of developments over the past two months, the central issue concerning U.S. tariffs has shifted from the an debeatur (the right to a refund) to the quomodo, namely the procedural mechanisms and time limits within which eligible parties may recover amounts unduly paid.

To understand the scope of the March 27 order, it is essential to place it within the proper procedural sequence, which consists of at least three main steps:

March 4, 2026: First order. Judge Eaton ordered that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) (1) liquidate all unliquidated entries without applying IEEPA tariffs, and (2) reliquidate entries already liquidated where liquidation has not yet become “final.” The order applies to all importers, not only to the plaintiffs in the Atmus case.
March 20, 2026: Interim amending order. The order clarified that the scope of IEEPA tariffs also includes those imposed on imports from Brazil and India, while explicitly excluding de minimis entries under 19 U.S.C. § 1321 (currently subject to separate litigation). For entries that have become final, and in the absence of an agreement with the parties on reliquidation, importers are advised to consider filing a protest pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1514.
March 27, 2026: The present order. This order expressly extends the reliquidation mandate to entries for which liquidation has already become final (finally liquidated), thereby prima facie overcoming the standard preclusion under § 1514.

Key Developments of the March 27, 2026 Order

Although the effectiveness of the order is currently suspended pending the implementation of the CAPE system, its legal significance is substantial. Under 19 U.S.C. § 1514, within the U.S. customs system, a liquidation becomes final and binding on all parties unless challenged by a protest within 180 days. The March 27 order calls this preclusion into question by allowing reliquidation even for entries that have exceeded that threshold.

The legal basis invoked—albeit highly controversial in legal debate—is the CIT’s residual jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), which would allow the Court to restore legality even for consolidated positions where the tariff has been declared unlawful ab initio. From this perspective, reliquidation would serve a mandatory remedial function overriding statutory preclusions.

Pursuant to the order:

Unliquidated entries should be processed without applying IEEPA tariffs. Refunds should be issued in a substantially automatic manner through the CAPE system (Phase 1);
Liquidated but non-final entries should be subject to reliquidation and refund through two different mechanisms depending on timing:
- within 90 days of liquidation, CBP may exercise its voluntary reliquidation authority under 19 U.S.C. § 1501, without any action required by the importer;
- between 90 and 180 days after liquidation, the importer must file a formal protest under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 to preserve the right to a refund, as CBP cannot act voluntarily in this period. Failure to file a protest entails the risk of finality and loss of the claim;
Finally liquidated entries (beyond 180 days) should be reliquidated and refunded notwithstanding the expiration of the protest deadline. However, CBP has excluded such entries from CAPE Phase 1, deferring them to a subsequent Phase 2, for which no timeline has yet been announced. This remains the most uncertain and contested procedural area.

It should be noted that the March 27 order expressly excludes issues relating to de minimis treatment under 19 U.S.C. § 1321, which are subject to separate litigation before the CIT. Importers affected by this category must therefore independently monitor those proceedings.

Risk Analysis and the “Protective Protest” Strategy

Despite the apparently comprehensive scope of the March 27 order, significant risks remain for parties seeking refunds, warranting a highly cautious approach.

The most controversial issue concerns the continuing relevance of the protest remedy, which in the ordinary system constitutes the essential prerequisite for challenging a customs liquidation. By extending relief to final entries, the March 27 order appears to diminish its role, suggesting in principle that filing a protest may no longer be necessary.

However, notwithstanding the order’s apparent departure from this principle, the use of the protest mechanism remains the safest and most recommended course of action in light of the ongoing uncertainties, including the likely appeal by the U.S. Government against the CIT’s rulings and the possibility of subsequent reversal.

Moreover, given the current suspension of the order’s effectiveness, CBP is not yet required to implement the March 27 decision, particularly with respect to finally liquidated entries. During this suspension period, liquidation deadlines will continue to run, increasing the risk that additional entries may fall into final liquidation without the importer having taken protective measures.

In light of the foregoing, as well as the uncertainty surrounding the implementation timeline for CAPE Phase 2 and the limitations set forth under 19 U.S.C. § 1501, it is recommended, as a matter of prudence, to file a protective protest for all entries approaching the 180-day deadline, as well as—precautionarily—for those already finally liquidated.

(1) It should be noted that, on April 6, 2026, Atmus Filtration filed a notice of dismissal; the current leading case is Euro-Nations Florida v. United States, in which the CIT has replicated the same injunctive framework.

We remain available for any further information or assistance.

The information contained in this article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute, and is not intended to constitute, legal advice or any other form of professional advice. The content does not take into account the specific circumstances of any individual case and should not be relied upon as a basis for making decisions without obtaining appropriate professional advice.