CIT Attempts to Fill Gaps Left by Prior IEEPA Refund Orders

On Friday, March 27, the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) issued an order that seeks to fill gaps left by its prior orders regarding refunds of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”).  Specifically, the CIT’s new order specifies that “[a]ny liquidated entries for which liquidation is final shall be reliquidated without regard to the IEEPA duties.”  The CIT’s prior orders only covered unliquidated entries and liquidated entries “for which liquidation is not final.”  Although the CIT has not explained what it means by liquidation that is “not final,” it likely means entries that are beyond the 90-day post-liquidation period during which U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) can voluntarily reliquidate entries.  See 19 U.S.C. § 1501. 
 
Although the CIT’s order was filed in Atmus Filtration v. United States, it was likely in response to an emergency motion filed by the plaintiffs in AGS Company Automotive Solutions v. U.S. Customs & Border Protection.  In December 2025, the CIT denied those plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to suspend liquidation on the grounds that the Government promised that it would issue refunds with interest.  See AGS Co. Auto. Sols. v. U.S. Customs & Border Protec., 2025 WL 3634261, at *4 (CIT Dec. 15, 2025).  In the meantime, many of those plaintiffs’ entries liquidated and are now beyond the 90-day voluntary reliquidation window.  Many other importers are in the same position and the plaintiffs’ emergency motion highlighted the gap left by the CIT’s prior orders in Atmus Filtration, discussed above.  The AGS plaintiffs also highlighted the inconsistency between the CIT’s December 2025 decision, which suggested protests under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 are not the proper vehicle to contest IEEPA tariffs, and the CIT’s March 20 order in Atmus Filtration, which suggested they are.  Friday’s new order did not address this issue.  The CIT also denied the AGS plaintiffs’ emergency motion via a separate order.
 
Although this is a positive development, it reveals the confusion and uncertainty that remains in the tariff refund process.  It is also not clear whether CBP’s proposed administrative process is capable of automatically reliquidating entries that are more than 90 days beyond liquidation.  The questionable legality of the CIT’s orders and the Government’s likely appeal provide additional uncertainty.  Thus, the most assured way for importers to protect their rights is to file suit at the CIT.  We will keep you updated on any further developments.