March 5, 2026

Refunds of IEEPA Tariffs: What Importers Can Do Now

Jeffrey Bialos, Ginger Faulk, Mark Herlach, Adriana "Ana" Santana, Sherry Zhang Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP + Follow Contact LinkedIn Facebook X Send Embed

While the US Supreme Court ruled on February 20 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, the Court did not address the question of how duties assessed based on IEEPA and paid by importers will be refunded. The case has now been returned to the US Court of International Trade (CIT) for consideration of remedies, including refunds, and the CIT is expected to address this issue in the near term. In the interim, importers can take steps now to preserve their rights and facilitate a refund of duties paid pursuant to the IEEPA tariffs.

As discussed in detail below, importers have a number of options to consider in order to preserve their rights in light of their individual circumstances and attitude toward risk management, and we are happy to discuss them on a time-sensitive basis. Available choices include:

• Submitting a post summary correction (PSC) for unliquidated entries subject to the IEEPA tariffs (although there have been reports that CBP is currently not accepting PSCs for IEEPA tariff refunds);
• Filing a protest within 180-days of liquidation of such entries; and
• Filing a lawsuit before the CIT to request duty refunds. I. The Aftermath of the Decision

In its decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and V.O.S. Selections Inc. v. Trump, the Supreme Court held that IEEPA’s authorization to “regulate…importation” does not afford the President the right to impose tariffs. The decision affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with its ruling.

After the Court issued its decision, the plaintiffs of V.O.S. Selections submitted a motion to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), requesting that the court immediately issue its mandate to the CIT for further action on remedies. In response, the US government requested the CAFC stay its mandate for at least 90 days, citing the complexity of the case, the importance of careful process, and the need for the different branches of government to consider remedial options as reasons for justifying the stay.

Notably, on March 2, the CAFC granted the plaintiff’s motion, denied the government’s motion for a stay, and mandated the case back to the CIT. The CAFC did not provide a written explanation for its decision, but its mandate brings the CIT one step closer to formulating a process for the repayment of unlawful tariffs.

II. What to Expect from the CIT

The CIT’s consideration of the remanded V.O.S. Selections will likely be the first effort to fashion a remedy for importers who paid duties assessed under IEEPA tariffs unless the CIT designates one of the many other refund lawsuits as the lead case for this purpose. Whichever case is the first to consider remedies will likely have an impact well beyond the parties to the case – and will probably apply not only to the parties to the several thousands of similar cases pending but to the many more importers who paid IEEPA duties and have not filed suit.

What is likely to happen at the CIT?

In all likelihood, the CIT will request briefs for the parties on the question of appropriate remedies, including the refund process. After briefing, the CIT will likely issue an order to the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on the subject.

What are the likely contours of a CIT refund order?

1. The CIT will almost certainly order the repayment of the duties collected under the IEEPA tariffs. With the tariffs having been ruled unauthorized, there is no legal basis for Treasury to keep the funds. Moreover, the US government has already acknowledged in filings before the CIT and CAFC that if IEEPA tariffs were found to be unlawful, duties would be refunded with interest, and the government would not oppose a CIT order directing reliquidation of entries.
2. It is also very likely that the CIT will direct the CBP to pay refunds on all entries where IEEPA duties were assessed – regardless of the status of the entry (i.e., whether it was already liquidated or not, and whether the normal time for protest of liquidation has expired). In this regard, it is worth noting that in its January 7, 2026 filing with the CIT, the government confirmed that its agreement not to contest reliquidation extends to “all current and future similarly situated plaintiffs.”
3. Finally, the CIT is likely to direct the CBP to come up with a fair and orderly process for the payment of the refunds. However, as a court, the CIT is not likely to direct any particular specific elements of the administrative process, leaving the details to the executive branch and, in particular, CBP, to shape. What remains uncertain is when any refund mechanism will be established. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently emphasized that refunds are in the CIT’s hands, and the government “will follow what they say,” as, according to the Secretary, the refunds are “not up to the Administration.” In the interim, CBP already maintains established administrative pathways for importers to seek refunds when duties were improperly collected, which are directly relevant here.

III. Steps Importers Can Take Now to Preserve and Facilitate Refunds

Before the CIT issues a decision and accompanying remedial order, importers can take steps now to protect their rights to a refund of IEEPA duties by understanding the limitations of such pathways (i.e., deadlines for action thereunder) and utilizing options currently available to them.

Although the CIT’s order will likely be broad in scope and apply to all importers affected by IEEPA tariffs (regardless of the status of their entries and limitations of existing pathways for refunds), importers should nonetheless consider taking protective steps now to preserve and enhance their refund rights. Indeed, it is possible that the Trump Administration could challenge the broad availability of relief and seek to apply the existing rules on refunds to limit its repayment obligations. For example, the Administration could argue that parties that did not act under the deadlines for filing a protest under the traditional refund rules should not be allowed to obtain a refund.

a. CBP Administrative Processes

Under the current framework, CBP allows importers to seek a refund for improperly collected duties by pursuing one of two options:

1. Submitting a Post Summary Correction (PSC) for unliquidated entries. Importers may file PSCs to flag entries for refund based on the illegality of the IEEPA tariffs. PSCs are straightforward to submit, preserve the issue before liquidation, and align with CBP’s existing practice of issuing retroactive refunds through PSCs. Filing a PSC now strengthens the administrative record and avoids any potential waiver arguments later. However, there have been reports that CBP is not currently accepting PSCs as a mechanism for obtaining refunds of IEEPA tariffs.
2. Filing a Protest within 180-days of liquidation. For entries that have already liquidated, importers may, within 180 days, file a protest to challenge duties that were collected upon liquidation. If CBP denies the protest, the importer has the right to seek further review at the CIT and, if successful, obtain reliquidation beyond the 180-day period. In the case of IEEPA tariffs, it is possible that the CIT will order CBP to reliquidate entries and issue refunds, even for entries for which no timely protest had been filed. Still, given the uncertainties, for importers with significant exposure, filing protests within the legal window is a prudent safeguard. b. CIT Litigation

The other option for seeking a refund of IEEPA tariffs is filing suit in the CIT. While, in theory there is no reason that filing a lawsuit should be necessary to qualify for a refund, such an action could provide importers with an additional way to protect their rights to a refund, particularly if the Trump Administration does not make paying IEEPA tariff refunds a priority. A lawsuit may also provide a sense of security for an importer who has concerns about the ability of CBP to facilitate the payment of refunds.

Importers that have already filed a complaint with the CIT have presumably acted out of caution, based on the concern that once CBP liquidates their entries, the government might argue that refund rights have lapsed. Accordingly, a lawsuit might preserve refund claims after liquidation.

The primary downsides of filing a lawsuit are the cost and effort involved in preparing the complaint and participating in subsequent court proceedings. Further, it is unlikely that the CIT will ultimately require importers to file a lawsuit to be eligible for a refund, given the number of lawsuits already filed and on the CIT’s docket.

c. Immediate Action Items

In short, now is the time for importers entitled to refunds to prepare for whatever process is established to obtain tariff recoveries. The first step is to collect all relevant documentation (including entry summaries and payment records) in anticipation of utilizing the official refund process. In addition, it is important for all companies to review their commercial contracts to determine whether they have an obligation to pass on refunds to customers or are eligible to obtain refunds from suppliers.

IV. Conclusion

The CIT’s forthcoming order on remedies will undoubtedly clarify how and when refunds will be issued. By using CBP’s existing administrative channels and, when warranted, pursuing litigation before the CIT, importers can position themselves to protect their interests. Proactive steps taken now will minimize risk and help ensure access to any relief available through the process ultimately established by the CIT.

[View source.]

Send Print Report

Latest Posts

• Global Health & Life Sciences Bulletin (UPDATED)
• Potential new opportunities for COVID 19 period interest and penalty refunds following Kwong and Abdo
• Film Room: Massive penalties proposed for tampering violations
• Fifth Circuit holds written consent not required for telemarketing calls under the TCPA
• Refunds of IEEPA Tariffs: What Importers Can Do Now See more »

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
Attorney Advertising.

©
Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP

Written by:

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP Contact + Follow Jeffrey Bialos + Follow Ginger Faulk + Follow Mark Herlach + Follow Adriana "Ana" Santana + Follow Sherry Zhang + Follow more less

What do you want from legal thought leadership?

Please take our short survey – your perspective helps to shape how firms create relevant, useful content that addresses your needs:

Take the survey now »

Published In:

Constitutional Challenges + Follow Court of International Trade + Follow Customs and Border Protection + Follow Imports + Follow International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) + Follow Lack of Authority + Follow Learning Resources Inc v Trump + Follow Reimbursements + Follow Risk Management + Follow Statutory Interpretation + Follow Tariffs + Follow Trump Administration + Follow Trump v VOS Selections + Follow US Trade Policies + Follow Administrative Agency + Follow Antitrust & Trade Regulation + Follow General Business + Follow Elections & Politics + Follow International Trade + Follow more less

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP on:

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra: Sign Up Log in ** By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.* - hide - hide