Background
Since March 2026, the CIT, through Judge Richard Eaton, has held off-the-record “settlement conferences” to oversee Customs and Border Protection’s (“CBP”) implementation of the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (“CAPE”), a system designed to administer IEEPA refunds. As of May 27, CBP “was in the process of refunding approximately $85 billion of these tariffs—over half the amount of IEEPA tariffs paid.”
Recently, however, Judge Eaton has expressed dissatisfaction with the Government’s efforts to refund unlawfully collected IEEPA duties for entries that have “liquidated” (referring to the final settlement of customs duties owed on the merchandise). In particular, Judge Eaton appears to disagree with DOJ’s position that refunds for entries that are “finally liquidated”—referring to those falling outside the 90-day window in which CBP has authority to voluntarily reliquidate the entries—must be limited to those importers who have filed their own individual lawsuit and obtained a court order directing a refund. DOJ asserts that, without a specific court order for each importer, CBP lacks statutory authority to reliquidate such entries.
On May 27, Judge Eaton issued a Show Cause Order directing parties to file briefs explaining why the CIT should not require immediate compliance with the April 17 injunction. As part of the Show Cause Order, Judge Eaton took the rare step of ordering CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott to appear before the court to answer questions about the timing of CBP’s compliance with the order.
The CIT’s injunction
Judge Eaton’s April 17, 2026 injunction order broadly directs CBP to refund IEEPA duties paid on three categories of entries: (1) entries that have not yet liquidated; (2) entries for which liquidation has occurred but is not final; and (3) entries for which liquidation is final. In an effort to provide CBP with the opportunity to implement the necessary programmatic changes, Judge Eaton stayed this order.
Importantly, the CIT asserted, in connection with its order, that that the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., which held “that universal injunctions are impermissible,” was inapplicable to the order because the CIT has “exclusive subject matter jurisdiction to hear claims like those presented in this case.” According to the CIT, the Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources acknowledged the CIT’s exclusive jurisdiction over the claims at issue.
DOJ’s plan to appeal the injunction
DOJ says in its May 29 filing that it “intend[s] to appeal the Court’s universal injunction and to seek a stay . . . except as to the particular importer plaintiffs in each case in which the Court has entered the injunction.” As anticipated, DOJ explains that CBP lacks authority to reliquidate “finally liquidated” entries without an importer-specific court order. At the same time, DOJ believes the CIT’s universal injunction exceeds the court’s jurisdiction and equitable authority under Trump v. CASA because, in part, it covers non-litigants. Further, DOJ believes that even litigants must receive an individual order from the court before they will be eligible to receive refunds.
Request to amend CIT’s Show Cause Order
As part of DOJ’s motion, DOJ also requested that the CIT amend its Show Cause Order requiring Commissioner of Customs Rodney Scott to appear in court for live testimony on June 9, 2026. DOJ noted the unusual nature of such an order.
Judge Eaton quickly denied DOJ’s motion, acknowledging the separation of powers concerns but explaining that the Commissioner’s testimony is necessary and that the Government’s obligation to return all unlawfully collected duties is clear. DOJ’s filing indicates that the Government will appeal this issue to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Path forward for importers
Current Litigant Importers. DOJ’s position is that the court must issue importer-specific orders for IEEPA duties to be refunded. So far, almost 4,000 importers have filed lawsuits at the CIT requesting refunds. However, the CIT has opted against issuing importer-specific orders in favor of a broader order directing CBP to take action to refund all IEEPA tariffs following the Supreme Court’s decision. The issue of whether litigants must receive individual refund orders may be resolved through the ongoing litigation and appeal. For now, importers who have already filed a lawsuit need not take any further action but should review their entries’ liquidation timelines and file administrative protests at the relevant dates identified below.
Non-Litigant Importers. DOJ says non-litigant importers must file with the CIT and obtain their own court order to secure refunds for “finally liquidated” entries. As companies consider whether to file a lawsuit, they should closely review their liquidation dates to assess the extent to which entries have already “finally liquidated.” Depending on the value of the IEEPA duties, plus interest, associated with the “finally liquidated” entries, it may be prudent to file a lawsuit.
All Importers. For litigant and non-litigant importers alike, we continue to advise importers to file Customs protests for entries at the 160-170 day mark post-liquidation (comfortably within the 180-day deadline for doing so) to preserve their rights to refunds as these issues continue to play out. Such protests are not a substitute for a CIT lawsuit, but provide a “belt and suspenders” approach to ensuring that liquidations are not deemed 100% final while importers seek to vindicate their refund rights. All importers should closely review the liquidation timelines of their entries to ensure they understand when protests should be filed and coordinate with counsel or their customs broker to do so.
Please reach out to any of the listed contacts if you have any questions regarding IEEPA duty refunds and for assistance with submissions of CAPE filings.
Authored by Joshua Kurland, Michael Jacobson, and Stephen Finan.
