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”.