Court of International Trade Provides Clarity on Potential IEEPA Tariff Refunds
On December 15, 2025, the Court of International Trade (CIT) provided further clarity to importers awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision on whether the tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) are lawful.
The CIT made two key findings: (1) The CIT has power to order reliquidation and refunds where the government has unlawfully imposed duties (i.e., if the Supreme Court holds the IEEPA tariffs unlawful), and (2) the CIT will retain jurisdiction over claims for refunds for the two-year statute of limitations that applies to such claims under 28 U.S.C. 1581(i).
As a result, importers have time to wait for the Supreme Court to issue its decision on whether the IEEPA tariffs are legal before taking action to obtain refunds, assuming that decision is issued in the next few months (as expected).
Background
In November and December 2025, a large number of importers filed preemptive lawsuits at the CIT to preserve their rights to refunds in the event that the Supreme Court struck down the IEEPA tariffs. The importers feared that, as their imports began to “liquidate,” the clock was starting to run on appealing customs duties to the CIT.
“Liquidation” is the finalization of the tariff amount owed on imports for customs purposes. When an import is made, the entry is held “open” by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for about 314 days, a period of time during which CBP inspects entry documentation. Generally, after 314 days, entries will “liquidate,” i.e., CBP determines their duty rate to be final. If an importer wants to contest how CBP liquidates an entry, then the importer must file a “Protest” to CBP within 180 days. If CBP denies that Protest, the importer must appeal the agency’s action to the CIT within 180 days.
As part of the lawsuits, the importers requested the CIT to pause the liquidation process (i.e., “suspend liquidation”) to prevent the duty amounts from becoming final. However, CIT’s December 15 decision determined that such a pause was unnecessary because the court will retain the power to order “reliquidation”—a recalculation of the tariff rate owed—in the event that the Supreme Court finds the IEEPA tariffs unlawful.
What This Means for Importers Waiting for Potential IEEPA Tariff Refunds
In AGS Company Automotive Solutions v. United States, CIT Slip Op. 25-154, the CIT held that importers are not required to protest the liquidations of IEEPA duties under 28 U.S.C. 1581(a), and may appeal them directly to the CIT under 28 U.S.C. 1581(i). The court determined that the liquidation of entries that may occur before the Supreme Court’s decision are “not final,” and the court has the power to order reliquidation and issue refunds on appeal.
Practically speaking, this means there are likely two possible scenarios for issuing refunds if the Supreme Court determines that the IEEPA tariffs are unlawful and orders them to be refunded to importers. Either CBP will set up an administrative process to refund the IEEPA tariffs paid on its own, or importers will have to sue to collect their refunds owed.
Under either scenario, the statute of limitations for seeking the refunds is two years from the date of the contested action—which, to be conservative, is the date of publication of the tariffs. The IEEPA tariffs placed on imports from China to combat the opioid crisis, and those placed on imports from Mexico and Canada were published on February 7, 2025. The IEEPA reciprocal tariffs on all other countries were published April 7.
The Mayer Brown team stands ready to advise importers on claiming their refunds and other customs issues that may arise in the future.
