IEEPA Tariff Refund Update

As an update to our prior alert on IEEPA tariff refunds, we are reviewing recent developments in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the case in the Court of International Trade that will control administrative refund mechanics going forward.

Key Takeaways:

• The CIT is prioritizing an automated refund system and has not (yet) instituted processes for administrative or judicial review of CBP’s refund calculations.
• Importers should preserve their rights by filing timely administrative claims while the process is playing out and should pursue protests under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 for reliquidation of entries for which liquidation has become final.
• The CIT is maintaining tight control and has rejected efforts by the trade bar to apply a multidistrict litigation-style framework with input from multiple importers.
• The order in Atmus has been amended to apply to all duties imposed under IEEPA, not just the IEEPA tariffs at issue in the litigation.
• The CBP has significant work remaining to roll out its proposed automated refund system and appears unlikely to hit the mid-April deadline it previously suggested.

On March 4, 2026, Judge Richard K. Eaton entered an order in Atmus that effectively required CBP to issue nationwide refunds for IEEPA tariffs and stated that he was the “the only judge who will hear cases pertaining to the refund of IEEPA duties.” On March 17, 2026, CIT Chief Judge Mark Barnett ratified that order by reassigning all cases seeking IEEPA refunds to Judge Eaton. Clarifying some confusion as to whether his earlier order applied to all duties imposed under IEEPA, or just the IEEPA tariffs at issue in the litigation, Judge Eaton on March 20 further amended his earlier order to apply to all duties imposed pursuant to IEEPA, including those imposed on imports from Brazil and India. Atmus is now the lead case for all IEEPA tariff litigation.

Judge Eaton has been using Atmus to hammer out an administrative refund process. In response to CBP’s claim that it could not immediately remove and refund IEEPA duties, the judge suspended his March 4 order “to the extent that it directs immediate compliance” and required CBP to explain the steps the agency is taking to modify its Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system to consolidate refund and interest payments on an importer basis — what the CBP is calling CAPE functionality (i.e., the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries).  

The agency has submitted multiple declarations updating the court on its efforts, the most recent of which was filed on March 19. In that update, CBP explained that for the four CAPE components, the Claim Portal is 73% complete (up from 70% on March 11), Mass Processing is 45% complete (up from 40% on March 11t), Review and Liquidation/Reliquidation is 80% complete (no improvement from March 11), and Refund is 63% complete (up from 60% on March 11). The agency did not provide a timeline for CAPE’s completion. It had previously suggested the automated system would be ready by mid-April, but this appears optimistic given the work that remains and the pace of progress to date. 

That said, Judge Eaton has accepted the government’s progress. In a March 20 order, the court said CBP was making “satisfactory progress toward the timely completion of a process to issue refunds of IEEPA duties paid with interest.” The court is not requiring another update until March 31 at noon, when the government must file another “report describing the progress Customs has made toward the completion of a process to issue refunds of IEEPA duties paid with interest.” The court will also hold its next closed-door session with the Atmus parties later that day.

The judge also appears willing to allow the government to roll CAPE out without input from importers — or at least any importers other than the one plaintiff in Atmus. The plaintiff in Atmus on March 18 filed an application for “expanded case management procedures” to create a master case for the entry of orders that would apply to other IEEPA refund cases and for a Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee to “ensure that the Court receives the benefit of insight from experienced customs practitioners representing a range of claimants on the nuanced legal and procedural questions at hand.” The application observed that the court’s conferences in the case had been closed to the public, with only counsel for plaintiff and the government present, and explained that plaintiff was “not prepared to speak for all plaintiffs in the IEEPA Tariff Cases, let alone for all affected importers, regarding the functional or legal sufficiency of CBP’s proposals.” Within hours of its filing, however, Judge Eaton denied the application in a one sentence order stating simply that “the motion is denied.”

By swiftly rejecting the expanded case management procedures application, the court appears to be signaling that it will not get bogged down in complex, multidistrict-style litigation at this stage. Judge Eaton instead appears set on rolling out an automated refund process first and fixing it later if necessary. Given the complexity of the process and the differences in the 330,000 importers that are owed refunds, it almost certainly will need some tinkering. 

It’s also clear that CAPE, even when implemented, is not going to be a universal fix. In his most recent March 20 order, Judge Eaton stated that in their last closed-door session, the “court and the participants discussed refund questions related to deemed liquidation, reliquidation of entries for which liquidation has become final, and the provision of refunds to those importers who do not take advantage of” the CAPE functionality in CBP’s ACE system. CBP’s position on these issues is not clear, but it appears the government does not intend to allow for reliquidation in CAPE of entries for which liquidation has become final, because the judge observed that “[c]onsidering that no resolution was reached” on that issue, “importers should be aware of the remedies available under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 (Protest against decisions of Customs Service).” And as we observed in our last update, even when the automated mechanism is up and running, there will still need to be a mechanism for handling disputed claims administratively and a process for judicial review. 

So we are still at the beginning stages of what will be a long and complicated process. But we are starting to see how Judge Eaton will likely handle it: He’ll first get the automated process in place, in whatever form CBP offers it, and he’ll then work out the kinks and sort out a review process, if any. In the meantime, importers should preserve their rights by filing timely administrative claims and should pursue protests under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 for reliquidation of entries for which liquidation has become final.