6/24/26 — FedEx to Return Approximately $800 Million in IEEPA Tariff Refunds to Customers Beginning in August

FedEx Corporation disclosed on Tuesday that it will begin returning approximately $800 million in tariff refunds to customers starting in August. The announcement accompanied the company's fiscal fourth-quarter earnings report, which topped Wall Street expectations on both revenue and profit.

The refunds stem from duties FedEx collected on behalf of customers after the Trump administration imposed tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Supreme Court struck down those tariffs in a 6-3 ruling on February 20, 2026, holding that IEEPA did not authorize the President to impose them. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has since launched an online refund portal to process the resulting claims.

FedEx had pledged in April to pass these refunds along to customers as soon as the funds were received from CBP. The August timeline now disclosed by the company indicates that CBP disbursements through its Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) refund mechanism are reaching carriers and importers of record who collected and remitted the duties.

The disclosure came alongside strong financial results. FedEx reported fiscal fourth-quarter adjusted earnings of $6.31 per share, exceeding the analyst consensus of $5.97, on quarterly revenue of $25.01 billion. Total revenue for the full fiscal year rose to $94.7 billion, and international export package yields increased 10% during the quarter, aided by fuel surcharges and strong demand.

For importers who used FedEx as the importer of record or who paid IEEPA duties through the carrier, the announcement signals a concrete path to recovery of overcollected duties. Companies expecting refunds should confirm the entries at issue, verify that the duties were collected under the IEEPA tariff actions invalidated by the Supreme Court, and coordinate with FedEx regarding the timing and method of the pass-through payments.

6/23/26 — CBP: Only Recon-Flagged Entries Without a Filed Recon Entry Accepted in Next CAPE Phase

CBP has announced that only entries flagged for reconciliation that do not yet have a reconciliation entry (type 09) on file will be accepted in the next phase of its Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) tariff refund tool, set to launch June 29, according to a CSMS message. Entries flagged for reconciliation that already have a reconciliation entry on file will not be included in the June 29 phase and will instead be handled in a later phase of CAPE development.

CAPE will accept reconciliation-flagged entries of types 01, 02 and 06 for which the type 09 reconciliation entry has not yet been filed. Only unliquidated entries, and those within 80 days of liquidation, will be accepted.

Once flagged entries are accepted on a CAPE declaration, the trade may file the reconciliation entry. The process removes the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) duties from the flagged entries before the reconciliation entry is filed, thereby separating the refunds from the calculations on the entry. Once the entry is filed, CBP will assume that all CAPE declarations associated with the entries were filed and accepted.

If a reconciliation filing deadline expires in fewer than 30 days, the trade will need to prioritize filing the reconciliation, CBP said. All filing and processing requirements from the first phase of CAPE remain in effect.

6/10/26 — CBP Reports $94.94 Billion in Refunds Accepted for Processing and $23.68 Billion Completed Through CAPE

On June 10, 2026, CBP's Executive Director of the Trade Programs Directorate, Brandon Lord, filed his declaration in Euro-Notions Florida, Inc. v. United States (Ct. No. 25-00595, CIT) providing a status report in response to the court's May 27, 2026 order. The declaration provides the latest hard numbers on the agency's IEEPA refund effort through its Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) system as of Friday, June 5, 2026.

In summary, as of June 5, 181,155 CAPE declarations had been submitted, of which 125,576 passed the file validations. The most common reasons for failing the file validations were importer-of-record or filer mismatches, entry number validation errors, and .CSV files not matching the ACE portal template. The validated declarations cover 16.74 million entries with IEEPA duties that passed the entry-specific validations and were accepted for removal of IEEPA duties through CAPE. Of those, 10.60 million entries have since been liquidated and/or reliquidated without IEEPA duties. Another 3.99 million entries failed the entry-level validations—primarily because the entry date was past CBP's 90-day reliquidation authority, the entry did not contain a Chapter 99 HTS number used to assess IEEPA duties, or the entry was already filed on a prior CAPE declaration. Approximately $94.94 billion in both potential and certified refunds (duties plus interest) has been accepted for processing in CAPE. Of that total, approximately $23.68 billion in refunds has been completed using the CAPE Refund component, certified by CBP, and sent to the U.S. Department of the Treasury for disbursement. CBP reports that its financial accounting system receives updates from Treasury indicating these certified refunds are being regularly disbursed, and the agency continues to review and finalize the remaining potential refunds through CAPE's Review and Liquidation/Reliquidation component. As of June 5, 5,535 consolidated refunds had not been transmitted to Treasury because the importer of record (or its authorized CBP Form 4811 designee) had not provided Automated Clearing House (ACH) account information. Importers expecting refunds should confirm that they have active ACE accounts with ACH banking activated so that disbursements are not held up.

Economic caveat: The scale of these refunds is now showing up in the federal fiscal data. According to Reuters, the Treasury Department reported that customs collections turned net-negative for the first time on record in May 2026, with customs duty refunds of $21.97 billion exceeding gross customs collections of $21.93 billion—a net customs outflow of roughly $42 million for the month. The refunds stem from CBP's effort to return an estimated $166 billion in IEEPA tariffs collected before the Supreme Court declared those tariffs unconstitutional in its February 21 ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. Importers should keep in mind that as more refunds are certified and disbursed through CAPE, the government's tariff revenue picture—and the broader budget impact—will continue to shift.

6/9/26 — CBP Begins CAPE Work for Finally Liquidated Entries, but No Refunds of Them Authorized Unless the Importer has filed a Lawsuit Seeking Refunds

At a June 9, 2026 hearing before the Court of International Trade (CIT), the government took the position that CBP is authorized to continue preparing its Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) system for phase three, but is not authorized to process refunds on finally liquidated entries. DOJ counsel asserted that CBP cannot reliquidate finally liquidated entries with refunds unless the affected importer has individually filed suit at the CIT, suggesting the court might, for example, create a list of importers who have sued so that CBP could refund those companies via CAPE.

Rather than the CBP Commissioner, Susan Thomas, Executive Assistant Commissioner of CBP's Office of Trade, provided the agency's testimony. She told the court that Phase Two of CAPE (covering reconciliation entries) remains scheduled to launch June 29, and that programming for Phase Three should be ready in late July. Thomas explained that attempting to refund every entry type at once would significantly slow implementation, and that Phase Three will require importer of record numbers to ensure refunds reach the correct importers.

Plaintiffs, led by V.O.S. Selections, argued that no statute requires a court order to issue refunds on finally liquidated entries, and that limiting refunds to importers who file suit improperly lets the government pick and choose who receives refunds. Judge Eaton also pressed Thomas on CBP's failure to extend liquidation deadlines following the Supreme Court decision invalidating the IEEPA tariffs, noting that this inaction has caused additional entries to become finally liquidated, and asked her to consider extending those deadlines.

The judge also questioned why the government appealed if it appears willing to issue refunds, suggesting it could stipulate that the decision apply only to this case to avoid setting precedent. Burke responded that the outcome could affect the parallel litigation in the Adminstration’s defense of Section 122 tariffs. In its petition for a writ of mandamus to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the government argued that the CIT's order amounts to an unlawful universal injunction under Trump v. CASA. Plaintiffs then argued that if the government were committed to refunds but still concerned about CASA, then it should not oppose Terry Precision Cycling's motion for class certification. During this discussion, Judge Eaton reportedly stated, “[i]t would be disappointing to me if we go into the world of class actions”.

6/3/26 — DOJ Appeals CIT's IEEPA Refund Order, Sparking Uncertainty; Judge Eaton Voices Frustration Over Refund Process

On June 2, 2026, the U.S. government appealed the Court of International Trade's April 17 order directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to refund duties collected under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (V.O.S. Selections v. United States, CIT No. 25-00066). The appeal has injected fresh uncertainty into the refund process for the remainder of 2026. It takes three coordinated actions in V.O.S. Selections v. United States, CIT No. 25-00066, and represents the most aggressive Executive Branch pushback to date against the Court of International Trade's universal IEEPA refund regime:

1. Notice of Appeal: The government appealed Judge Richard K. Eaton's April 17, 2026 injunction order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

2. Petition for Writ of Mandamus. DOJ separately petitioned the Federal Circuit for mandamus relief, focused principally on quashing Judge Eaton's order compelling CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott to testify in person at the CIT on June 9.

3. Motion for Stay. The government also sought a stay of the testimony order pending resolution of the mandamus petition, and signaled it will seek a stay of the universal injunctions from the Federal Circuit "if necessary."

The Universal-Injunction Challenge

In its mandamus petition, the government argues that Judge Eaton ordered universal injunctions covering all entries subject to IEEPA duties even though no importer-plaintiff had moved for preliminary injunctive relief. The government contends that the injunctions are "plainly unlawful under Trump v. CASA."

The CIT had reasoned that it was not bound by CASA because it was created under a different statute and granted exclusive national jurisdiction over particular categories of claims. DOJ rejects that view, noting that Congress expressly vested the CIT with "all the powers in law and equity of, or as conferred by statute upon, a district court of the United States," and arguing that the CIT therefore "cannot wield an equitable power to grant universal injunctions that district courts do not possess."

The Mandamus Petition: Blocking Commissioner Scott's Testimony

The centerpiece of the mandamus petition is the June 9 testimony order. DOJ argues Judge Eaton's order compelling Commissioner Scott's appearance is unlawful and violates settled precedent from multiple courts of appeals, citing the Federal Circuit's decision in In re United States.

Key points from the petition:

- High-ranking Executive Branch officials cannot be compelled to testify absent "extraordinary circumstances," where the official has "first-hand knowledge" unavailable from "other persons" and "essential to the case."

- Federal courts have issued mandamus to block compelled testimony of officials including the Vice President's chief of staff, the CFTC chairman, three FDIC directors, and the Railroad Retirement Board's inspector general, among others.

- Compelling Commissioner Scott's testimony would "take time away" from his duties and creates the very risks of "disrupting significant ongoing government activities" that warrant mandamus.

- The CIT failed to identify any extraordinary circumstance, any factual question on which Scott possesses unique firsthand knowledge, or any reason testimony from alternative witnesses would be insufficient.

- DOJ had offered to substitute Susan Thomas (CBP's Executive Assistant Commissioner for Trade) and Brandon Lord (CBP's Executive Director of the Trade Programs Directorate). Judge Eaton denied the substitution motion without explanation.

- The government warns that the trial court's apparent intent to "hector" the agency head over perceived shortcomings in IEEPA refund administration underscores serious separation-of-powers concerns.

DOJ also argues that Scott's testimony "is in no sense 'essential'" to the V.O.S. Selections plaintiffs' actual claims, and notes the plaintiffs themselves never sought it. Tellingly, the CIT's denial of the substitution motion stated the court was seeking information about CBP's intentions regarding "small importers" and other importers whose duties "currently cannot be processed by the CAPE program" — subjects DOJ says are untethered from the plaintiffs' pleaded claims.

In response, Judge Richard K. Eaton voiced his perspective in a June 3 letter to the government, noting that the progress CBP has made in refunding unlawful IEEPA duties — including the development of the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) portal — resulted directly from the trade court's order, a version of which the government now appeals. Judge Eaton sent a companion letter regarding the need for testimony from CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott and asked that both letters be added to the record of the government's appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

5/31/26 — DOJ Notifies Court It Will Appeal CIT's Universal IEEPA Refund Order

On May 29, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice formally notified the Court of International Trade (CIT) that it intends to appeal Judge Richard Eaton's universal IEEPA refund order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The DOJ's filing also signaled that it will appeal the related order requiring CBP Commissioner Rodney S. Scott to appear personally before the court, and that it will seek mandamus relief from the Federal Circuit if its motion to substitute another official is denied.

The DOJ's principal argument, previewed in its May 29 filing and echoed in CBP's contemporaneous motion to amend, is that the CIT exceeded both its jurisdiction and its equitable authority when it directed CBP to reliquidate and refund IEEPA duties on finally liquidated entries belonging to importers who never filed suit. Relying heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. CASA, the government contends that a single CIT judge cannot grant universal relief to non-parties, and that any importer seeking a refund on a finally liquidated entry must obtain an importer-specific judgment under 28 U.S.C. 1581(i). The government has indicated it will seek a stay of the universal injunction pending appeal, except as applied to the named plaintiffs in each case.

As a result of the appeal, it is possible that U.S. Customs could take the position that it is obligated to stop processing CAPE refund requests.

For importers, who have already obtained all refund needed via CAPE refunds, there may be nothing further to do at this time.

For all other importers seeking IEEPA tariff refunds who have not already filed a litigation action, this appeal could represent yet another reason to consider promptly filing a litigation claim.

5/27/26 — CBP Reports $20.6 Billion in IEEPA Refunds Disbursed via CAPE, Concedes $10 Billion Error; Judge Eaton Summons Commissioner for Next Status Conference

On May 26, 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) filed an updated declaration in Euro-Notions Florida, Inc. v. United States, Ct. No. 25-00595 (CIT), describing the agency's progress in administering refunds of IEEPA duties through its new Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) functionality in ACE. The declaration reports meaningful progress but concedes a significant prior misstatement of refund figures. Click here to read the full status report.

According to the declaration of Brandon Lord, as of May 22, 2026, approximately $85 billion in potential and certified IEEPA refunds had been accepted for processing through CAPE, and roughly $20.6 billion (duties plus interest) had been certified by CBP and transmitted to Treasury for disbursement. The declaration concedes that CBP's earlier May 12, 2026 refund figure was overstated by approximately $10 billion due to an “inadvertent error in the data query.”

Judge Richard K. Eaton then ordered the Commissioner of CBP to appear personally before the Court of International Trade. That order signals dissatisfaction the overall pace of refunds and requiring accountability from the agency head. The Commissioner is likely to be further questioned about CBP’s plans to ensure all eligible importers receive timely duty and interest refunds in compliance with the court's prior orders.

In the interim, importers owed IEEPA refunds can seek to (1) confirm that all eligible entries have been or will be covered by a CAPE declaration within CBP's 90-day reliquidation window, (2) verify that Chapter 99 HTSUS coding and other entry data align with CAPE validation requirements, (3) ensure ACH banking information and any CBP Form 4811 designations are current so that completed refunds are not delayed, and (4) continue to monitor developments.

5/4/26 — CBP Launches Comprehensive IEEPA Refunds Page; CAPE Refund Payments Could Begin as Soon as May 11

U.S. Customs and Border Protection has rolled out a comprehensive webpage dedicated to IEEPA duty refunds, consolidating filing instructions, FAQs, CSMS messages, and program updates in a single location. CBP has indicated it will update the page regularly and is encouraging importers and customs brokers to monitor it for new guidance.

The page provides detailed information on the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) functionality in ACE, which CBP launched in phases to streamline IEEPA refund processing. CAPE is designed to consolidate refunds, including interest, rather than handle them entry-by-entry.

After Atmus Filtration, Inc. voluntarily dismissed its CIT case, Judge Eaton designated Euro-Notions Florida, Inc. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CIT No. 25-00595) as the new lead IEEPA refund case and reissued the refund order to that case.

Most notably, CBP reports that CAPE refunds are progressing on schedule, with actual payments expected to begin issuing as soon as May 11, 2026. Under CBP's stated timeline, valid refunds will generally be issued within 60 to 90 days after acceptance of a CAPE Declaration, with liquidated entries reliquidating the next business day after acceptance. Because Phase 1 opened on April 20, 2026, the earliest CAPE Declarations are now reaching the payment stage.

4/27/26 — No IEEPA Refunds Have Yet Been Issued, However, Consumer Class Actions Are Already Here

Two putative class actions are now pending against FedEx in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (where FedEx is headquartered) with the parties moving toward consolidating them into a single case.

Anastopoulo v. FedEx Corporation (W.D. Tenn. # 2:26-02334) was originally filed in South Carolina on February 20 and transferred to the Western District of Tennessee in late March. It alleges FedEx breached its shipping contracts by charging fees tied to unlawful IEEPA tariffs and then failing to refund those charges. Then Reiser v. Federal Express Corporation and FedEx Logistics (W.D. Tenn. # 2:26-02410) was filed shortly later, in Miami on February 27 and transferred to the same Tennessee court in early April. The Reiser case also alleges that FedEx billed customers for IEEPA duties while "merely facilitating" payment of those duties to CBP. Both complaints argue FedEx was unjustly enriched because it positioned itself as importer of record to keep all IEEPA refunds which were ultimately recovered from the government.

Chief Judge Sheryl Lipman has given FedEx until June 1 to respond and has stated that "no further extensions will be granted." The parties told the court that they "reasonably anticipate filing a motion to consolidate” and want to "realize the efficiencies of a single, centralized action." Similar potential exposures exists for other couriers, carriers, and brokers who may have acted as an importer of record on IEEPA shipments.

As class actions, these cases are built around consumers and small shippers who are unable to sustain individual litigation themselves. As such, class action attorneys tend to resolve such cases via settlements agreements which disproportionately benefit class counsel via fee awards, with individual class members typically seeing only minor recoveries. Parties with a larger individual claims can avoid having these rights adjudicated and settled within a class action, but doing so requires separately preserving a timely cause of action through in independent litigation action. With FedEx's response due June 1 and consolidation already in motion, the window to do so may be a narrow one.

4/21/26 — CAPE Phase One IEEPA Refunds Move Forward

CAPE Phase 1 is now live in ACE for IEEPA-related refund claims, and uptake has been strong, with more than 55,000 trade users logging in on the first day and refund requests covering over 4 million entries. CAPE declarations are subject to ACE file-level validations, and once a declaration is accepted and assigned a claim number, CBP will systematically remove the applicable IEEPA Chapter 99 provisions at the entry summary level and issue duty refunds with interest under 19 U.S.C. 1505 within roughly 60-90 days. CBP has clarified that customs brokers may only submit CAPE declarations for entries that they themselves filed, though a single broker declaration may cover multiple importers of record so long as all underlying entries were broker-filed by that same filer.

CAPE Phase 1 is only a partial solution that was create to respond as quickly as possible to a court order, and does not pretend to encompass all IEEPA-paid entries. According to CBP's deployment materials, Phase 1 entries does not cover many categories. For example, CAPE will reject entry summaries that are flagged for reconciliation, the subject of a pending protest, subject to drawback refunds, or subject to a court injunctions, as well as where the entry is within a final liquidation phase, in trade control, cancelled or rejected, or otherwise suspended (e.g., ADCVD entries) or under review.

On the April 21 webinar, CBP officials said there is currently no firm timetable for “Phase 2” of CAPE that would address these shortcomings. CBP also clarified that PSCs are not a pathway to initiate IEEPA refunds and must instead be used, if at all, before a CAPE claim—for example, to adjust a notify party.

In addition, the scope of Phase 1 involves only unliquidated entries and those entries which have liquidated within the last 80 days. Therefore, for entries that are rejected or are ineligible for CAPE Phase 1, importers would need to pursue other traditional remedies to preserve refund rights (rather than waiting for an indefinite Phase 2 release)— such as by filing a timely protest under 19 U.S.C. 1514 (due within 180 days of liquidation) or, where appropriate, by initiating litigation at the Court of International Trade.

4/13/26 — As CAPE Nears Completion, Polls Emerge on the Impact of Tariff Policy

With CBP's CAPE refund portal set to go live on April 20, two new surveys published this week offer a snapshot of how the business world is thinking about tariffs and the road ahead.

PwC surveyed 633 U.S. executives and found that 86% now treat tariffs as a permanent planning assumption — a sharp shift from just a few years ago, when most expected trade barriers to come and go with administrations. After bipartisan continuity on tariff policy across both the Biden and Trump presidencies, executives have largely stopped waiting for relief and have built duties into their operating models. Notably, 90% said their company is in a stronger position than two years ago, though PwC cautioned that most firms are pursuing similar strategies around AI, risk management, and supply chain diversification.

Separately, the CNBC CFO Council quarterly survey polled 25 CFOs at major U.S. companies on whether they expect to pass IEEPA refunds along to consumers. None said they would. Twelve plan to apply for refunds, six said they would not pass any portion downstream, and seven were undecided. Moody's chief economist Mark Zandi characterized the results as expected, noting that companies absorbed significant costs during the tariff period and view potential refunds as recovery of those losses.

As CAPE's first phase rolls out next week for straightforward entry types, importers should be organizing documentation and preparing to file. The broader policy environment — and these survey results — underscore why pursuing refunds promptly remains important.

4/10/26 — April 20 Launch: CBP's CAPE System Promises Consolidated IEEPA Refunds

CBP states that on April 20, it will launch the first phase of its new Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) tool in ACE to handle IEEPA duty refunds.

CAPE is designed to replace the current entry‑by‑entry approach with consolidated refunds of IEEPA duties and interest by importer (or designated party) and liquidation date. Phase one of CAPE will be limited in scope to processing (1) unliquidated entries and (2) entries that liquidated within the past 80 days.

To use CAPE, the importer of record or authorized broker must have an ACE portal account, submit a CAPE Declaration in ACE, and ensure bank account information is on file for electronic refunds. After the CAPE Declaration is filed, CBP will remove the IEEPA HTS number, recalculate duties, create a new version of the entry, and then liquidate or reliquidate it, with CAPE consolidating the resulting refunds for payment.

For more detail, please review CBP's Bulletin announcement: PBRB #5517-0426.

See also, ACE CAPE instructions document.

4/9/26 — Euro-Notions Florida Becomes New Lead IEEPA Refund Case

Euro-Notions Florida Becomes New Lead IEEPA Refund Case

On April 6, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade granted Atmus Filtration, Inc.’s notice of voluntary dismissal of its lead IEEPA tariff refund case, Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 26‑01259.

To keep the IEEPA refund framework in place, Senior Judge Richard K. Eaton promptly lifted the stay in Euro‑Notions Florida, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 25‑00595, and on April 7, 2026 issued an order that mirrors his prior Atmus order by directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to: (1) liquidate all unliquidated entries subject to IEEPA duties without those duties; (2) reliquidate any liquidated but not‑final entries without those duties; and (3) reliquidate even finally liquidated entries without those duties.

As a practical matter, the “refund machinery” still remains in motion, but Euro‑Notions Florida has now replaced Atmus as the lead case subject to Judge Eaton’s IEEPA refund orders. Given that the new Euro‑Notions Florida order was reissued on April 7, 2026, practitioners generally expect the government’s 60‑day deadline to notice an appeal to hit on around June 8, 2026, absent tolling or further motion practice.

Meanwhile, assuming the CAPE build remains on track it would be completed on about April 20. CAPE incorporates a 45-day processing window that is separate from the 45-day build window, putting the earliest refunds at about June 4th.

4/7/26 — Atmus Filtration Dismisses Lead IEEPA Refund Suit

Importer Atmus Filtration has dismissed its case seeking refunds of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Until now, Atmus' case was treated as the lead lawsuit on the provision of IEEPA refunds by Judge Richard Eaton, who the Court of International Trade has tasked with overseeing all refund matters.

In the Atmus case, Judge Eaton issued an order compelling CBP to liquidate unliquidated entries without the tariffs, as well as reliquidate both finally and not finally liquidated entries without the tariffs. That order was suspended while CBP developed an administrative system for refunds.

In the case, Eaton also rejected efforts by Atmus to establish a plaintiffs' steering committee.

With the dismissal of Atmus, the Court will need to identify a new lead case to continue overseeing IEEPA refund litigation. Importers with pending refund claims should monitor developments closely, as the transition to a new lead case could affect the timeline and procedures for processing refunds.

3/28/26 — CIT Expands Paused IEEPA Tariff Refund Order to Include Finally Liquidated Entries

On March 27, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade took a significant step in the IEEPA tariff refund litigation by expanding its refund order to cover finally liquidated entries, not just entries that remain unliquidated or non-final. Judge Richard Eaton amended his prior directive to state that any liquidated entries for which liquidation is final shall be reliquidated without regard to the IEEPA duties, potentially opening the door to substantial additional refund exposure for the government once the current pause on implementation is lifted.

At the same time, the court continued its suspension of the order to the extent that it requires immediate compliance, and denied AGS Company Automotive Solutions' motion to lift the stay in its lead case, CIT No. 25-00255. That means importers still do not yet have a live, operational roadmap for how CBP will process IEEPA refunds on finally liquidated entries, even though the court has now confirmed that such relief is within the scope of the remedy.

3/24/26 — Early Liquidation Risk Across Entry Types

While most online discussions of IEEPA claims envision a roughly 314-day liquidation period typical of Type 01 consumption entries.

It’s important to however to recognize that there are 49 usable entry types and that there is operational variance as to liquidation cycles for each. CBP runs liquidation cycles on shorter timelines for some entry types simply because those are operationally cleaner and see fewer adjustments. These include as examples:

• Type 11 (Informal Entries): May liquidate within 30 days.

• Type 31 (Warehouse Withdrawals): Commonly finalize within 60–180 days of withdrawal.

• Type 06 (FTZ Consumption Entries): Usually liquidate about 90–210 days after withdrawal.

That compressed timing collapsed the protest window for some of those entries before legal challenges to the tariffs were addressed by the Supreme Court (on February 20, 2026).

For example, a warehouse withdrawal may have occurred on March 1, 2025 with a corresponding liquidation on May 30, 2025, roughly 90 days later. The protest period would have expired on November 26, 2025. Since the Court’s ruling came after that date, the importer’s entry would have already reached final liquidation under 19 U.S.C. § 1514, with CBP’s reliquidation authority under § 1501 long expired. However, during this period, the issue was still considered “non-protestible” as a Constitutional challenge to the tariffs (i.e., an issue that Customs at the time was unable to approve via an adminstrative protest).

Importers in this position are now evaluating alternative legal theories, including:

• Bringing litigation under the residual jurisdiction clause of the Court (28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)) as a litigation claim (these are time sensitive claims);

• Equitable tolling, arguing the protest clock should begin once the IEEA tariff’s are legally invalidated; and

• Challenges to liquidation finality, potentially asserting that liquidation based on an unlawful tariff may lack binding effect.

Each approach depends on legal theories (rather that clear settled procedure) and collectively represent an emerging next phase of IEEPA refund recovery.

In sum, Early liquidation is routine for many types of entries including informal entries, warehouse entries, and FTZ entries; thus, Importers should:

• Review entry data to identify which transactions may have liquidated early.

• Consider protective protests, even if protestability and/or timeliness are uncertain issues.

• Consult counsel early to time-sensitive litigation claims under § 1581(i).

3/20/26 — CIT Expands IEEPA Refund Order to Cover Brazil and India Tariffs

Judge Eaton has now formally expanded his nationwide IEEPA refund order in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, Ct. No. 26-01259 (Ct. Int'l Trade Mar. 20, 2026), to cover IEEPA tariffs imposed on Brazil and India, while simultaneously continuing the suspension of immediate compliance as CBP builds an administrative refund mechanism. CBP must report back to the court on March 31, 2026.

What the March 20 Order Does

The CIT issued a further amended order in Atmus Filtration making clear that the March 5 refund order applies to all unliquidated entries subject to IEEPA duties, including those imposed on imports from Brazil and India -- not just the reciprocal and IEEPA tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China that were directly at issue in the Supreme Court's Learning Resources decision. The order now directs CBP to liquidate unliquidated entries and reliquidate non-final liquidated entries without regard to the IEEPA duties. The order does not address de minimis treatment under 19 U.S.C. 1321, which remains the subject of separate litigation.

Even as he broadened the coverage of refunds, Judge Eaton kept in place the suspension of the March 5 order to the extent it requires immediate compliance. CBP is not yet required to begin issuing IEEPA refunds as it continues to work on the programming required for the new refunds module, called CAPE (Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries).

March 31 Status Report

The order requires the government to file a further report March 31, 2026 that further describes progress toward completing that CAPE module, followed by a settlement conference that same day.

What This Means

For importers that paid IEEPA duties on Canada, Mexico, China, Brazil, India, or other affected countries, the CIT has now made explicit that unliquidated and non-final liquidated entries are to be liquidated or reliquidated without regard to IEEPA duties.

CBP is currently being required to refund those duties plus interest once the refund process is operational.

However, court has not yet resolved how to handle entries where liquidation has become final, and therefore importers are directed to protest remedies under 19 U.S.C. 1514 to preserve rights for those entries. This order does not attempt to resolve the nuanced legal issue of exactly when such entries become “protestable” in light of the current open court proceedings; or what might happen if the Administration files an appeal to the CIT Order.

Importers should work closely with counsel to protect all legal avenues to seek refunds, meet deadlines, and prepare documentation for CBP's forthcoming CAPE-based refund process.

The March 20 order is available here: 2026 CIT Further Amended Order (PDF)

3/20/26 — Trump Refund Rhetoric

Today, March 19th, the President took a moment to complain against the IEEPA tariff refunds which he stated will approximate $500 billion (a massive overstatement considering CBPs $166 billion quantification). For those waiting for refunds, this hostile rhetoric is concerning.

Since February 20th, Treasury Secretary Bessent’s has spoken out against tariff refunds as being the “ultimate corporate welfare” and a “corporate boondoggle,” because (in his belief) importers largely raised prices or captured supplier discounts, such that tariff refunds now merely amount to a “windfall.” To drive this home, Bessenet questions whether importers will pass refunds back to U.S. consumers; hence arguing that tariff refunds do not help U.S. households, but merely enrich big companies that have already recouped those costs.

Immediately after the SCOTUS ruling on February 20th, President Trump himself had this blunt exchange with a reporter:

• Reporter: “Since Liberation Day, there's about 175 billion in tariff revenue that is now in limbo. Do you have to refund 175 billion?”

• Trump: “Think of it, Peter. Very fair question. They take months and months to write an opinion and they don't even discuss that point. We've taken in hundreds of billions of dollars, not millions, hundreds of billions of dollars. And so I said, ‘Well, what happens to all the money that we took in?’ It wasn't discussed. Wouldn't you think they would've put one sentence in there saying that keep the money or don't keep the money, right? I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years.”

• Trump: “So they write this terrible defective decision, totally defective. It's almost like not written by smart people. And what they do? They don't even talk about that. Your question is very basic. That was the first question I asked also to make you feel good. And you say, ‘What about all the money that we've taken in?’ Sir, they don't discuss that. How crazy is that?”

Follow‑up:

• Reporter: “What you're saying is, are you saying that you don't plan to honor refunds for companies that file for them?”

• Trump: “I just told you the answer. Right? I told you the answer. It's not discussed. We'll end up being in court for the next five years.”

Taking the President at his Word, Refund Lawsuits Have Surged

The President's comments come as the pace of tariff refund litigation continues to accelerate with importers concerned that the Administration may file an appeal against the refund order. According to Bloomberg News, nearly 1,000 new refund cases have been filed at the Court of International Trade since March 1 alone, bringing the total to well over 3,000 lawsuits. The surge suggests that the trade community is not treating CBP's 45-day implementation timeline as a reason to stand down from litigation.

The idea is instead that importers with significant IEEPA exposure should continue to pursue all legal strategies: monitoring liquidations, filing timely protests under 19 U.S.C. 1514 where entries have liquidated, and pursuing early protective litigation at the CIT to preserve rights in the event the administrative process proves insufficient, complex, or delayed due to an appeal.

3/19/26 — Why the Supreme Court’s Mandate Is Potentially Important for IEEPA Refund Strategy

As CBP moves ahead with a CAPE-based portal to process IEEPA tariff refunds, the next potentially important legal development for importers is the Supreme Court's mandate. CBP has indicated to the Court of International Trade (CIT) that it needs roughly 45 days to stand up refund processing and has begun designing a system to handle refunds at scale, but that implementation work could be interrupted if President Trump directs the Department of Justice (DOJ) to appeal the CIT's refund order. The President has publicly suggested that resolving the IEEPA refund issue could take "two years" of additional litigation, while neither he nor DOJ has confirmed whether an appeal will be filed. At the same time, President Trump and Director Bessenet have characterized the refunds as "corporate welfare" and "enrichment," signaling political pressure to resist large-dollar corporate refunds, not speed them along. If the White House does instruct DOJ to appeal, CBP will in practical terms have little choice but to pause rollout of any refund portal while the case is docketed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), briefed on an expedited schedule, argued, and decided, followed by a 90-day window to seek Supreme Court review that runs into the Court's mid-summer recess and October return.

How the Mandate Could Affect "Finality" and Remedy Choice

At the same time, the Supreme Court's rehearing period has now closed, which means the Court's mandate can issue at any time. Some observers expect that mandate as early as March 24, 2026, but the key point is that it is now an "any day" event rather than a distant procedural step. Once the mandate issues and is transmitted to the lower courts, it will sharpen the question of whether the VOS Selections litigation is sufficiently final to cut off so-called "piggyback" IEEPA refund suits by non-party importers at the CIT. If courts treat the mandate as closing out the VOS litigation for purposes of residual jurisdiction, then importer lawsuits filed after that date could be found untimely, leaving the administrative protest procedure under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 and 19 C.F.R. pt. 174 as the primary mechanism for securing IEEPA refunds. In that scenario, importers who have not filed litigation might need to rely on protests filed within 180 days of liquidation, and failure to protest liquidated entries could foreclose both refunds and judicial review (even if CBP's refund portal is operational and even if court appeals are still pending in the background).

Why the Mandate Creates Strategic Uncertainty

There is also a plausible alternative: courts could conclude that the Supreme Court's mandate does not eliminate residual jurisdiction for related piggyback suits, leaving litigation at the CIT available alongside protests. In that world, some liquidated entries might not yet be treated as "protestable," or courts might view litigation as the proper vehicle for enforcing rights under the Supreme Court's IEEPA ruling for particular categories of entries or importers. The difficulty is timing and risk allocation. If the Trump Administration directs DOJ to appeal the CIT's refund order, protest clocks for liquidated entries will begin to run and expire (some as early as this summer) well before the CAFC, and possibly the Supreme Court again, bring true finality to the IEEPA litigation. That leaves importers facing real downside if they pick only one path: those who rely exclusively on litigation may later be told that their claims belonged in protests, while those who rely exclusively on protests may be told that their claims should have been brought as piggyback suits that are now jurisdictionally barred.

A Cautious Approach in a Fluid Environment

Against this backdrop, the forthcoming Supreme Court mandate is potentially important because it may convert today's flexible, overlapping remedial options into a tighter set of jurisdictional deadlines that differ depending on whether protests or litigation are deemed the correct mechanism. It will either push importers more firmly into the protest track, with strict 180-day post-liquidation timelines, or leave room for a dual pathway in which litigation at the CIT remains viable after the mandate. Combined with the unresolved possibility of a Trump-directed appeal, the 90-day certiorari window, and CBP's not-yet-live CAPE refund portal, this uncertainty makes it risky for importers seeking substantial IEEPA refunds to rely on a single remedy. For now, we view the conservative course as "covering all bases": where appropriate, filing targeted protective suits in the CIT while also monitoring liquidations closely and submitting timely protests within 180 days under 19 U.S.C. § 1514, so that importers preserve their rights regardless of how the courts ultimately interpret the effect of the Supreme Court's mandate.

3/17/26 — SCOTUS Mandate Likely to Issue in the Near Future

The Department of Justice has allowed the March 17, 2026 deadline under Supreme Court Rule 44 to pass without filing a petition for rehearing in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. This means the Supreme Court's landmark decision striking down the IEEPA tariffs will stand without further challenge at the highest court.

With judgment entered on February 20, 2026, and no rehearing petition filed by the Rule 44 deadline, the default mandate date is 32 days after judgment—March 24, 2026—unless the Court directs issuance "forthwith" or otherwise alters that schedule.

When the mandate issues, it formally returns jurisdiction to the lower courts and sets the legal machinery in motion for enforcing the Court's ruling. It may also heighten uncertainty around the unresolved question of when IEEPA tariffs become "protestable" and whether such protestability could foreclose the option of immediate litigation under the court's residual jurisdictional clause at 28 U.S.C. section 1581(i).

For this reason, many law firms have been urging clients to consider filing litigation sooner rather than later.