The U.S. Supreme Court, in one of its most anticipated decisions in recent years impacting the international business community, held in Learning Resources, Inc., et al. v. Trump, President of the United States, et al. that certain tariffs put into place by President Trump under the authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were unlawful. The Supreme Court held that “IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs” and that the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) has exclusive jurisdiction over the IEEPA actions.

Consequently, the issue of tariff refunds is now being addressed before the CIT, and companies have filed more than 2,000 cases before that court seeking to preserve their rights to receive such refunds. These cases have all been assigned to Judge Richard K. Eaton, who recently issued an order that addresses tariff refunds for certain importers of record whose entries were subject to IEEPA duties. 

The case in which Judge Eaton issued the operative order is Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States. Plaintiff in that case sought injunctive and monetary relief, including a “refund to Plaintiff [of] all funds paid pursuant to the [Executive Orders] including where necessary reliquidation of Plaintiff’s entries, as well as interest at the legal rate.” Judge Eaton’s order applies to “any and all unliquidated entries that were subject to IEEPA duties” and “any liquidated entries for which liquidation is not final” that were subject to IEEPA duties. The order’s reach thus extends beyond the parties to the Atmus case.

With respect to unliquidated entries, Judge Eaton directed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) “to liquidate those entries without regard to the IEEPA duties.” In addition, Judge Eaton ordered liquidated entries for which liquidation is not final to “be reliquidated without regard to IEEPA duties.” Notably, Judge Eaton did not instruct CBP how to proceed with regard to entries for which liquidation has become final. Although final liquidation can take up to 314 days, many liquidations for entries subjected to IEEPA tariffs have already been finalized. This presents an unresolved refund question for many importers of record.

One notable aspect of Judge Eaton’s order is that it is not limited to the parties that filed IEEPA-related suits. Judge Eaton indicated that “[a]ll importers of record whose entries were subject to IEEPA duties are entitled to the benefit of the Learning Resources decision.” The CIT has national geographic jurisdiction and exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over the tariff refund issues. It is anticipated that Judge Eaton’s order may be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Indeed, there may be additional rulings on the remaining issues from Judge Eaton himself as the Judge held a closed status conference with the parties in the Atmus case on the morning of March 6.  

Judge Eaton has not yet provided CBP with formal direction on the mechanisms it should use to process tariff refunds. Moreover, Judge Eaton’s March 4 ruling in the Atmus case is silent about the requirement of CBP to issue refunds for IEEPA duties paid for entries that have been liquidated finally by CBP. Concern related to the intention of CBP to issue refunds for all entries made with the application of IEEPA duties – including final liquidated, non-final liquated, and unliquidated entries – appears to be alleviated based on formal statements made by Mr. Brandon Lord, Executive Director, Trade Programs Directorate, Office of Trade, CBP, in a declaration filed by CBP prior to the closed status conference in the Atmus case on the morning of March 6.   

In Mr. Lord’s declaration, he explained that CBP could not meet the specific dictates of Judge Eaton’s March 4 order in the Atmus case because of limitations built into the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system used for handling import entries, liquidations, payments of duties, and refunds. Notwithstanding the inability of CBP to comply with the specific dictates of the March 4 order, CBP represented in its March 6 declaration that:

CBP is confident that it can develop and implement new ACE functionality that will streamline and consolidate refunds and interest payments on an importer basis, rather than issuing 53,173,939 separate entry-specific refunds with multiple payments going to the same importer.

CBP further stated: “CBP is making all possible efforts to have … new ACE functionality ready” to receive importer requests for refunds within 45 days of March 6, 2025. Specifically, CBP declared that:

Th[e] new process will require minimal submission from importers. It will also minimize errors by ensuring accurate IEEPA refund calculations through system validations and allowing for a review period for CBP to resolve any discrepancies with the importer and to confirm no other outstanding enforcement issues or no revenue is owed.

In explaining the need for the new system within ACE for the application for refunds, the adjudication of refund requests, and the issuance of refunds, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of the Treasury, CBP explained that a new system was required because using the existing ACE system tools would require more than 4 million hours of CBP personnel resources.  CBP explained that the new system for importers to request refunds of IEEPA duties paid will involve the following steps:


The importer files a declaration in ACE that includes a list of entries on which IEEPA duties were paid. 
ACE runs a series of validations on each entry within the declaration and automatically recalculates the duty owed without the IEEPA tariffs (with applicable interest). 
CBP verifies the declaration and processes refunds as soon as practicable. 
ACE automatically finalizes (liquidates or reliquidates) the entries. 
ACE automatically aggregates the refunds with interest by importer and liquidation date. 
CBP certifies the refunds. 
The Department of the Treasury issues IEEPA refunds electronically. 

Notably, in the CBP March 6 declaration, CBP commits to issuing refunds for all of the 53,173,939 entries that included IEEPA duties. This includes 33,730,325 informal entries, or 63% of all of the IEEPA-related import entries. This express commitment of CBP to issue refunds for all 53,173,939 entries means that importers should not be precluded from receiving refunds for entries where CBP has already finally liquidated the entries. Additionally, this means that importers will not need to submit protests pursuant to CBP regulations to prevent CBP from finally liquidating entries for which IEEPA duties were paid in the last year. 

In another turn of events, following the conference and in consideration of the practical difficulties for compliance, the CIT on March 6 issued an order suspending its first order that directed CBP to begin paying IEEPA duty refunds, to the extent that it directs CBP’s immediate compliance. The suspension order also notes that CBP is considering the automated refund system that could become operational in 45 days.

Buchanan’s team of international trade and national security attorneys and government relations and international trade professionals is closely monitoring developments and ready to help U.S. manufacturers with U.S. trade remedy laws, trade policy and all issues connected with the IEEPA tariffs.