Court of International Trade Orders Reliquidation of IEEPA Tariff Duties: What Importers Should Do Now

In a significant development for importers, on March 4, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued a ruling in the case of Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, ordering Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to refund and reliquidate tariff duties paid under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This order follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision on February 20, 2026, in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., which held in a 6-3 ruling that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs and that such authority rests with “Congress alone.”

This alert follows our two previous alerts on the same topic:

• Supreme Court Strikes Down IEEPA Tariffs: Key Takeaways and Next Steps for Businesses
• What Importers Need to Know as the Supreme Court Decides the Fate of IEEPA Tariffs

The CIT Order

The order issued by Judge Richard Eaton in Atmus Filtration instructs CBP to (1) liquidate any and all unliquidated entries “without regard to the IEEPA tariffs,” and (2) reliquidate any liquidated entries for which liquidation is not “final” without regard to the IEEPA tariffs. The CIT's chief judge designated Judge Eaton as the only judge to hear all IEEPA refund cases from this point forward. Practically, this ruling signifies an effort by the CIT to streamline a heavily burdensome process for businesses to seek refunds from CBP. What is more, Judge Eaton expressly extended IEEPA tariff relief to all importers of record, regardless of whether they filed suit with CIT.

The order’s universal application is arguably why its future remains uncertain. The government has 60 days to appeal the order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and seek a stay during that appeal. It may very well do so pursuant to a prior Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc., which held that universal injunctions are impermissible. Judge Eaton preemptively addressed this issue by asserting that CASA does not apply to a court with nationwide jurisdiction like the CIT and the constitutional requirement for uniform national duties. It remains unclear whether this distinction will insulate the order on appeal. Should the government decline to appeal, it may still seek a stay to extend its deadline to comply.

Should the order ultimately stand, it is self-executing: Importers will, collectively, receive refunds for the billions of dollars of IEEPA tariffs ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court, even without legal action.

Open Questions

Several significant unresolved issues remain:

1. “Finality” of liquidation. Ambiguity arguably remains about what constitutes “not final” liquidation — typically the protest deadline is 180 days after the liquidation date, but some importers have experienced accelerated liquidations earlier than the standard 314-day timeline.

2. Entries already fully final. The order covers unliquidated entries and liquidated-but-not-final entries (i.e., those still within the 180-day protest window). It says nothing about entries whose protest window has already closed, although those may be rare.

3. Timeline and mechanics. In its response in Atmus Filtration, CBP asked for more time “to ensure no violations of other customs laws and no other duties, taxes, or fees are owed (e.g., antidumping, Section 301, Section 232).” This potentially introduces uncertainty into the refund timeline, even if the order withstands appeal.

What Importers Should Do Now

In light of the CIT’s order, importers should take and continue taking the following steps:

1. Gather and retain documentation. Importers should continue to gather and retain records of all IEEPA tariffs paid since April 5, 2025, including entry packets, proof of payment, and documentation of any post-entry activity. For each shipment, importers should maintain entry numbers, entry dates, HTS codes and descriptions, type and amount of duties paid, country of origin, and projected liquidation dates. Importers should also retain copies of CF-7501 entry summaries, commercial invoices, packing slips, bills of lading, and other information from the import package.
2. Download records from CBP’s ACE portal. Importers should download or ask their customs brokers to download entry records from CBP’s Automated Customs Environment (ACE) system to identify entries for which they paid IEEPA tariffs. Importers should confirm enrollment in the ACE system, which provides real-time liquidation status and other critical entry information. Further, importers should confirm that they have activated ACH refund authorization within ACE.
3. Document liquidation dates. Importers should document the liquidation date for each entry containing IEEPA-related duties, as this will be critical for determining the appropriate deadline for filing protests or suit, if necessary.
4. Continue administrative remedies. For liquidated entries, importers should file protests requesting refunds plus interest no later than 180 days from liquidation, and for unliquidated entries, importers can file Post Summary Corrections (PSCs) requesting duty refunds plus interest.
5. Evaluate CIT litigation options. Importers should consult with trade counsel to evaluate whether filing suit at the CIT remains advisable. The Supreme Court previously affirmed that the CIT has exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to IEEPA tariffs, and such claims are subject to a two-year statute of limitations from when the cause of action first accrues.
6. Monitor for CBP guidance. While the CIT has now ordered refunds, CBP has not yet established a refund mechanism as of the date of this alert. Importers should monitor closely for CBP implementation guidance regarding the mechanics and timeline for processing refunds.

The Refund Domino Effect and Its Potential Impact on Customers

As it looks more like importer refunds are possible, if not likely, the focus of litigation may indeed shift to whether importers may have obligations to pass on refunds, or some portion of them, downstream to their customers. Importers and purchasers should review sales contracts and communications about price increases, especially for any surcharges tied directly to tariffs or where express or implied representations may have been made.

Ongoing Tariff Considerations

It is important to note that while IEEPA tariffs have been invalidated by the Supreme Court and refunds were ordered by the CIT, other non-IEEPA tariffs remain in effect or have been newly imposed. Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum, automobiles, copper, and lumber remain unaffected by the Supreme Court’s decision. Additionally, the administration has imposed temporary tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which took effect on February 24, 2026. The Section 122 tariffs will expire after 150 days unless the president seeks and receives congressional approval to continue them.

However, as of March 5, 2026, 24 states sued the administration in the CIT arguing that the new tariffs imposed under Section 122 are also illegal. New York’s attorney general stated that the fact that the U.S. runs a large trade deficit “is not a legitimate reason for imposing tariffs under Section 122,” and “in fact, the administration admitted during the prior lawsuit against the president’s IEEPA tariffs that trade deficits ‘are conceptually distinct from balance of payments deficits.’” In addition, the states also argue that the administration’s tariffs do not fit the criteria under Section 122, which the states argue requires new tariffs to be applied consistently and not applied in a discriminatory fashion. This litigation may end up following the same procedural path as the IEEPA cases.

Prepare for Increased CBP Scrutiny

In response to the limits on tariff authority, it appears that CBP is increasing its enforcement activity and is applying heightened scrutiny to import transactions and importer compliance. This includes more frequent Requests for Information, Notices of Action, audits, focused assessments, and investigations into classification, valuation, country of origin, and free trade agreement compliance. Importers should ensure their internal compliance programs are robust, conduct self-audits of recent entries, and promptly address any discrepancies before they attract CBP attention.

It is also important to highlight the March 4 CIT order’s focus on “reliquidation” rather than “refunds.” The reliquidation process may involve CBP further investigating an entry’s import characteristics to assess not mere compliance or IEEPA refund availability, but also whether more duty should have been paid under Section 232 (e.g., due to an incorrect valuation of an entry’s steel content) or other authority, which could result in a smaller refund than expected.

Conclusion

The March 4 CIT ruling represents a positive development for importers who have paid billions of dollars in tariffs under IEEPA authority, which the Supreme Court determined was never properly granted to the executive branch. While questions remain regarding the precise mechanics and timing of refunds, importers should act promptly to ensure that their documentation is in order and that they are positioned to take advantage of available refund mechanisms.

We will continue to monitor developments related to the CIT’s ruling and the implementation of the refund process and will provide updates as they occur.