Importers Continue to Eye IEEPA Tariff Refunds – What Should You Know?

Now that the Supreme Court has held that the tariffs President Trump imposed pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) are unlawful, collection of the tariffs has been halted, and the federal government should now issue billions of dollars in refunds to companies that paid the tariffs. The Supreme Court, however, did not rule on whether or how the government should provide refunds to the importers that paid the tariffs. The administration has indicated that it will delay and complicate the refund process, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has not issued guidance on pursuing refunds administratively. It is therefore up to the Court of International Trade (CIT) to sort through the thousands of IEEPA tariff-related cases that have been filed and that continue to be filed. Further complicating the landscape, President Trump doubled down on his tariff-heavy trade policy by imposing a new temporary tariff on all goods imported into the US and continuing the suspension of duty-free de minimis treatment.

Not to be left out, on March 4, the CIT provided the first order addressing refunds, providing clarity that those who paid IEEPA tariffs are entitled to refunds.

Termination of IEEPA Tariffs

After the Supreme Court held that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, President Trump issued an executive order stating that the tariffs he previously imposed pursuant to IEEPA “shall no longer be in effect and, as soon as practicable, shall no longer be collected.”[1] The order further stated that the national emergencies declared and all other actions provided in the prior executive orders remain in effect. The executive order did not address the issue of refunds of IEEPA tariffs. Thereafter, CBP provided guidance as to the termination of the tariffs. Initially, CBP indicated that it is working with other government agencies to fully examine the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision.[2] CBP then stated that the IEEPA tariffs will no longer be in effect and will no longer be collected for goods entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:00 a.m. EST on February 24, 2026.[3] CBP further stated that it will provide additional information and technical guidance to the trade community through its Cargo Systems Messaging Service as appropriate and as soon as it becomes available. 

Status of Refunds

Tariffs collected without statutory authority are an illegal exaction. When tariffs are paid and later invalidated, as they were here, the government cannot lawfully retain the amounts paid, and refunds are owed. But the Supreme Court left the question of how refunds should be handled to the lower court, so the path to obtaining refunds remains unclear. On the one hand, there is a clear administrative process to obtain refunds, i.e., post summary corrections for unliquidated entries and administrative protests for liquidated entries, but on the other hand, the administration has indicated that it plans to fight refunds. 

In prior pleadings, the government repeatedly represented to both the CIT and the Federal Circuit that it would provide refunds if the tariffs were held to be unlawful and that it would not object to reliquidation to allow for refunds to extend to liquidated entries.[4] And the CIT has stated that the government would be judicially estopped from taking a contrary position after the Supreme Court’s decision in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump.[5]  Now that the tariffs have been ruled unlawful, if it wanted to, the administration could launch a process for refunding the tariffs previously paid.

But after the Supreme Court’s decision, President Trump noted that the decision did not address refunds and suggested there will be years of litigation. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated that refunds would be a logistical nightmare, that it “could take years to litigate and get to a payout,” and that he has “a feeling the American people won’t see it.” US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer stated that the administration “need[s] the court to tell us what to do.” The administration is also reportedly developing legal strategies seeking to allow the government to retain the collected tariff revenue or, at a minimum, to slow or complicate the refund process.

Again, ordinarily, the methods to secure a refund would be post summary corrections for unliquidated entries and protests for liquidated entries. Both methods were previously suggested as remedies in CBP guidance addressing refunds related to stacking certain tariffs.[6] But CBP has not issued guidance on pursuing refunds administratively, and customs brokers are reporting that CBP is automatically rejecting post summary corrections and protests related to IEEPA tariffs. It appears that CBP, instead of following a clearly established administrative process, is waiting for direction from the administration.[7] The administration’s stance on refunds is therefore forcing importers to file new lawsuits, and the fight to obtain refunds is becoming the next phase of the litigation over President Trump’s unlawfully imposed tariffs.

On February 24, the plaintiffs-appellees in V.O.S. Selections requested that the Federal Circuit immediately issue its mandate, which would send the case back to the CIT.[8] The government opposed the motion and asked the court to withhold issuance of the mandate for ninety days after the Supreme Court sends down its judgment “to allow the political branches an opportunity to consider options.”[9] But on March 3, the Federal Circuit rejected the government’s position and issued its mandate.[10] This means that the CIT will begin considering the IEEPA tariff refund process.

On February 24, the plaintiffs in V.O.S. Selections also filed a motion for permanent injunctive relief in which they requested that the CIT enjoin the operation of all tariffs imposed under IEEPA and require the government to issue necessary administrative orders to effectuate the injunction and to issue refunds of tariffs paid pursuant to IEEPA with interest.[11] The government’s response is due March 17. Otherwise, there is no clear timeline for the CIT to provide more information or schedule next steps in the refund process.

On March 3, Judge Richard Eaton entered an order requesting information from the government. The government responded indicating that CBP is liquidating entries with duties imposed pursuant to IEEPA, has not issued refunds of IEEPA duties as the result of liquidations that have taken place since the Supreme Court’s decision, and has not issued instructions directing its employees to liquidate entries without IEEPA duties.[12] In response to the question as to whether IEEPA refunds were owed plus interest, the government stated that “[t]here are several factors which inform the answer to this question, including but not limited to entry type” but admitted that any valid refund of IEEPA duties would include interest in accordance with applicable law. It further stated that CBP requires a review period to ensure no other duties, taxes, or fees are owed. The government also stipulated that the CIT has authority to order reliquidation.[13] 

On March 4, Judge Eaton held a hearing and then entered an order stating that “[a]ll importers of record whose entries were subject to IEEPA duties are entitled to the benefit of the Learning Resources decision.”[14] He clarified that the Supreme Court’s holding in Trump v. CASA, Inc. providing that universal injunctions are impermissible did not apply here because the CIT has national geographic jurisdiction under the Customs Courts Act of 1980 and has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction to hear the IEEPA claims. He also indicated that Chief Judge Mark Barnett has decided that Judge Eaton will handle all cases pertaining to the refund of IEEPA duties.  He then ordered that all unliquidated entries that were subject to IEEPA tariffs must be liquidated without regard to IEEPA duties and all liquidated entries for which liquidation is not final must be reliquidated without regard to IEEPA duties.

Judge Eaton is holding a closed conference on Friday, March 6 to further address refunds. He reportedly gave the government instructions to prepare initial steps on how CBP can refund IEEPA tariffs without requiring importers of record to file a complaint with the CIT.

On March 4, the US Chamber of Commerce and the Consumer Technology Association filed an amicus brief in V.O.S. Selections.[15] The brief argues that that given the magnitude of entries at issue, the traditional pathways for obtaining refunds are impractical and that the court should facilitate a streamlined procedure to deliver refunds, which is in the best interest of the administration, the courts, and American businesses. 

Democratic senators also introduced legislation last week that would require CBP to issue full refunds with interest for all IEEPA tariffs within 180 days after enactment.[16] The legislation would also direct companies that receive refunds to pass the refunds on to their consumers. Similar legislation has been introduced in the House.[17] Neither bill is sponsored by a Republican. Without bipartisan support, the legislation will likely not go anywhere, leaving the issue of refunds to be resolved solely through the court system.

More recently, FedEx filed a refund lawsuit seeking a full refund of duties it paid.[18] The company stated that it intends to pass the refunds on to the shippers and consumers who originally bore those charges.[19] FedEx’s intention shines a light on the issue that the cost of the tariffs were often passed down the supply chain to consumers. Refunds are generally paid to the importer of record.[20] Individuals and companies that may have paid the tariff but were not the importer of record will likely have no direct recourse to seek refunds from CBP, but they may have contractual or other claims against the importer of record. This will likely result in litigation against importers of record by parties to whom the cost of the tariff was passed. 

Status of Trade Agreements

The impact of the Supreme Court’s decision on framework agreements that the US negotiated with several other countries is unclear. The administration stated that the US “will continue to honor its legally binding Agreements on Reciprocal Trade” and that it “expects the same commitment from its trading partners.”[21] Trade Representative Greer likewise expressed that the administration is “confident that all trade agreements negotiated by President Trump will remain in effect.”[22] President Trump also warned countries against backing away from prior agreements and said that any country that wants to “play games” would face much higher duties imposed under different authority.

Even under a trade agreement, to impose a tariff, the president must be acting pursuant to a specific statutory grant of authority. Most of the tariffs imposed and agreed to by other countries were pursuant to the president’s purported IEEPA authority and then implemented through executive orders. Therefore, tariffs imposed pursuant to IEEPA, even those agreed to in trade agreements, should be considered unlawful and should not be collected. However, some of the tariffs imposed in connection with trade agreements were imposed pursuant to other authorities. For example, the 25% tariff on U.K. steel and aluminum may be imposed pursuant to section 232. 

Countries with which the US has reached framework deals have begun reacting to the Supreme Court’s decision. The EU has paused its ratification of the EU-US framework agreement, while India likewise delayed scheduled meetings this week on the deal it reached with the administration last month. The main opposition party in Taiwan has threatened to stall approval of Taiwan’s agreement with the US. And Bangladesh’s legislative body is reconsidering whether to move forward with its deal given that the IEEPA tariffs were the primary motivation for reaching an agreement.

For others, the IEEPA tariffs were not the primary motivation for entering into the trade agreements, or countries also understand that if they back out of an agreement, they risk President Trump initiating a section 301 investigation to later impose the same tariff, or higher, agreed to under the prior agreement. Therefore, the non-tariff measures in the various trade agreements may stick. For example, the South Korean legislature is still planning to hold a vote to authorize its $350 billion investment in early March, and Japan, which pledged to invest $550 billion in US projects, has indicated that it plans to “continue implementing the agreement we made with the United States last year.” Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision provides foreign leaders with leverage as they continue to negotiate and finalize the agreements.

New and Continued Tariffs

Following the Supreme Court decision striking down the IEEPA tariffs, President Trump vowed to use alternative tools to reimpose them. As promised, on February 20, he issued a proclamation imposing a temporary tariff on all goods imported into the US, citing section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.[23] Section 122 permits the president to impose a temporary import surcharge in the form of duties, temporary limitations through the use of quotas, or both on imported merchandise for balance-of-payments reasons.[24] Imports may be restricted to (1) deal with large and serious US balance-of-payments deficits, (2) prevent an imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar in foreign exchange markets, or (3) cooperate with other countries in correcting an international balance-of-payments disequilibrium. A surcharge imposed pursuant to section 122 cannot exceed 15%, and any measure imposed cannot exceed 150 days, unless extended by an act of Congress.

President Trump found “that fundamental international payments problems within the meaning of section 122 exist” and imposed a temporary import surcharge of 10% ad valorem on all goods imported into the US for 150 days. The new tariff went into effect with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 12:01 a.m. EST on February 24, and will remain in effect until July 24 unless suspended, modified, or terminated. The tariff is in addition to any other duties, taxes, fees, exactions, and charges applicable to such products.

The proclamation provides that a range of products are not subject to the tariff, as detailed in annexes, including (a) certain critical minerals; (b) metals used in currency and bullion; (c) energy and energy products; (d) natural resources and fertilizers that cannot be grown, mined, or otherwise produced in the US, or grown, mined, or otherwise produced in sufficient quantities to meet domestic demand; (e) certain agricultural products, including beef, tomatoes, and oranges; (f) pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients; (g) certain electronics; (h) passenger vehicles, certain light trucks, certain medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, and buses, as well as certain parts; (i) certain aerospace products; (j) information materials, donations, and accompanied baggage; (k) goods subject to import restrictions under section 232; (l) goods entered duty-free under the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement; and (m) textile and apparel goods entered duty-free under the Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement. The section 122 tariff does not apply to goods subject to section 232 tariffs. However, to the extent a tariff imposed under section 232 applies to part of an import, the section 122 tariff applies to the part of the import to which section 232 tariffs do not apply but does not apply to the part of the import to which section 232 tariffs do apply.

The following day, President Trump said that he would raise that tariff rate to 15% (the maximum rate allowed by section 122), but he has not taken any action to effectuate that change. On March 4, Treasury Secretary Bessent said the administration was looking to implement 15% tariffs “sometime this week.” 

On March 5, 24 attorneys general and governors filed a lawsuit challenging whether the tariffs imposed under section 122 are lawful.[25] To impose the section 122 tariffs, President Trump cited the US’s trade deficits as justification. No president has invoked the statute before now. And although the statute permits a president to impose tariffs, President Trump’s basis for imposing the tariffs may be challenged, i.e., whether a balance-of-payments problem exists. Notably, in prior briefing filed with the Federal Circuit in the IEEPA litigation, the government admitted that section 122 does not “have any obvious application here, where the concerns the President identified in declaring an emergency arise from trade deficits, which are conceptually distinct from balance-of-payments deficits.”[26] The CIT, however, stated that the retaliatory tariffs “responds to an imbalance in trade—a type of balance-of-payments deficit—and thus falls under the narrower, non-emergency authorities in Section 122.”[27] 

President Trump also continued the suspension of duty-free de minimis treatment for all low-value goods imported into the US.[28] The de minimis exemption allowed the informal, duty-free entry of articles that have a retail value of $800 or less and are imported by one person in one day. The executive order states that “[t]he duty-free de minimis exemption provided under 19 U.S.C. § 1321(a)(2)(C) shall no longer apply to any shipment of articles not covered by 50 U.S.C. § 1702(b) regardless of value, country of origin, mode of transportation, or method of entry.” Therefore, all such shipments, except those sent through the international postal network, are now subject to all applicable duties, taxes, fees, exactions, and charges. Shipments sent through the international postal network are subject to the temporary import duty imposed under section 122 for as long as it remains in effect or until the effective date of the new entry process for postal shipments established by CBP. Transportation carriers or other qualified parties are responsible for collecting a remitting such duties to CBP. The order was effective with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 12:01 a.m. EST on February 24.

This executive order claims that the suspension of duty-free de minimis treatment is not affected by the Supreme Court’s decision that the IEEPA tariffs are invalid. The Supreme Court’s decision did not mention the de minimis exemption, but the decision may still apply to it as the suspension imposed pursuant to IEEPA allows for tariffs on goods that would have otherwise not been subject to a duty. Whether IEEPA permits the president to suspend the de minimis exemption is the subject of ongoing litigation.[29] Even if the exemption is revived through the courts, legislation signed last year repealed the exemption effective July 1, 2027.[30] 

The Trump administration has also indicated that it will impose new tariffs under sections 301 and 232. Section 301 authorizes the US Trade Representative, acting on directives from the president, to impose tariffs and other restrictions on countries that engage in unfair trade practices, and section 232 permits the president to impose tariffs and other restrictions by a good, sector, or class of goods upon a finding of a threat to national security. Both require investigations by the Trade Representative and the US Secretary of Commerce, respectively. Trade Representative Greer stated that they planned to initiate several investigations under section 301 to “deal with unjustifiable, unreasonable, discriminatory, and burdensome acts, policies, and practices by many trading partners.” He further stated that the investigations would “cover most major trading partners” and that the administration intended “to conduct these investigations on an accelerated timeframe.” He maintained that the ongoing section 301 investigations in Brazil and China will continue and that the section 232 investigations will be concluded.

Otherwise, President Trump must lean on Congress to enact his sweeping tariffs including extending his section 122 tariffs, but that is unlikely. Initially after the Supreme Court’s decision, Speaker Mike Johnson suggested that Congress would work with the administration to find “the best path forward.” Thereafter, Speaker Johnson indicated that Congress is unlikely to take up any legislation to codify President Trump’s tariff agenda because it would be “a challenge to find consensus on any path forward on the tariffs, on the legislative side.” 

What’s Next?

Ultimately, how the administration and CBP are going to proceed or how refunds of previously collected tariffs will be handled is unclear. What is clear is that importers of record should act promptly to identify applicable deadlines and take steps to preserve their rights to recover IEEPA tariffs. This may include reviewing customs data on affected entries, tracking liquidation status, filing post summary corrections and protests, requesting extensions of liquidation, and if necessary, filing suit in the CIT.  Importers of record should also gather complete entry documentation and evaluate the broader financial and legal implications of any recovery. 

This week the CIT took the first step towards ensuring that importers of record receive refunds. In the coming weeks, we expect Judge Eaton to further map out the refund process.  The CIT could handle the refund process in several ways. It could instruct companies to file post summary corrections and protests to obtain refunds, or it could determine that companies must file suit to obtain refunds, which could then result in the court addressing the lawsuits individually or collectively. Alternatively, the CIT could create or order CBP to create a refund process specific to IEEPA tariffs. As we gain additional clarity as to next steps from CBP or the CIT, we will keep you informed.

FOOTNOTES

1. Exec. Order No. 14,389, 91 Fed. Reg. 9437 (Feb. 25, 2026).
2. CSMS # 67823350 - Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) Judgment - International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) Tariffs, U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (Feb. 20, 2026, at 11:38 PM ET), https://content.govdelivery.com/bulletins/gd/USDHSCBP-40ae6f6.
3. CSMS # 67834313 - Ending Collection of International Emergency Economic Powers Act Duties, U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (Feb. 22, 2026, at 09:57 PM ET), https://content.govdelivery.com/bulletins/gd/USDHSCBP-40b11c9.
4. See, e.g., Defendants’ Response in Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Summary Judgment at 41-42, V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, 772 F. Supp. 3d 1350 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2025) (No. 25-66), Dkt. No. 32; Motion for a Stay of Enforcement of Judgment Pending Appeal at 8, V.O.S. Selections, Inc., 772 F. Supp. 3d 1350 (No. 25-66), Dkt. No. 59; Emergency Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal and an Immediate Administrative Stay at 25, V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, 149 F.4th 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (No. 25-1812), Dkt. No. 29.
5. AGS Co. Auto. Sols. v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot., No. 25-00255, 2025 WL 3634261, at *2-3 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 15, 2025).
6. See Notice of Implementation of Addressing Certain Tariffs on Imported Articles Pursuant to the President’s Executive Order 14289, 90 Fed. Reg. 21487, 21488 (May 20, 2025).
7. Trade, Customs & Border Prot., https://www.cbp.gov/trade (last visited Mar. 4, 2026).
8. Motion for Immediate Issuance of the Mandate, V.O.S. Selections, Inc., 149 F.4th 1312 (No. 25-1812), Dkt. No. 169.
9. Opposition to Motion for Immediate Issuance of the Mandate and Cross-Motion to Stay the Mandate, V.O.S. Selections, Inc., 149 F.4th 1312 (No. 25-1812), Dkt. No. 171.
10. Order, V.O.S. Selections, Inc., 149 F.4th 1312 (No. 25-1812), Dkt. No. 173; Mandate, Dkt. No. 174.
11. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Permanent Injunctive Relief, V.O.S. Selections, Inc., 772 F. Supp. 3d 1350 (No. 25-66), Dkt. No. 72.
12. Declaration of Brandon Lord in Response to the Court’s Questions of March 3, 2026, Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, No. 26-1259 (Ct. Int’l Trade Mar. 4, 2026), Dkt. No. 19.
13. Stipulation Regarding the Court’s Authority to Order Reliquidation, Atmus Filtration, Inc., No. 26-1259, Dkt. No. 16.
14. Order, Atmus Filtration, Inc., No. 26-1259, Dkt. No. 21.
15. Joint Brief of Amici Curiae the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and the Consumer Technology Association, V.O.S. Selections, Inc., 772 F. Supp. 3d 1350 (No. 25-66), Dkt. No. 77-1.
16. S. 3905, 119th Cong. (2026).
17. H.R. 7615, 119th Cong. (2026).
18. Complaint, Fed. Express Corp. v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot., No. 26-1150 (Ct. Int’l Trade Feb. 23, 2026), Dkt. No. 2.
19. Navigating U.S. tariffs and customs regulations, FedEx, https://www.fedex.com/en-us/shipping/international/us-tariffs-impact.html (last visited Mar. 4, 2026).
20. 19 C.F.R. § 24.36.
21. Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Imposes a Temporary Import Duty to Address Fundamental International Payment Problems, White House (Feb. 20, 2026).
22. Ambassador Greer Issues Statement on Supreme Court IEEPA Decision, U.S. Trade Rep. (Feb. 20, 2026).
23. Proclamation No. 11,012, 91 Fed. Reg. 9339 (Feb. 25, 2026).
24. 19 U.S.C. § 2132.
25. Complaint, Oregon v. Trump, No. 26-1472 (Ct. Int’l Trade Mar. 5, 2026).
26. Reply Brief for Appellants at 13-14, V.O.S. Selections, Inc., 149 F.4th 1312 (No. 25-1812), Dkt. No. 147.
27. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, 772 F. Supp. 3d 1350 (Ct. Int’l Trade).
28. Exec. Order No. 14,388, 91 Fed. Reg. 9433 (Feb. 25, 2026).
29. See e.g., Complaint, Axle of Dearborn, Inc. v. Dep’t of Com., No. 25-91 (Ct. Int’l Trade May 16, 2025), Dkt. No. 1.
30. One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Pub. L. No. 119-21, § 70531, 139 Stat. 72, 283 (2025).
31. Greer Statement, supra note 22.