As a follow-up to our article from February 25, 2026, entitled SCOTUS Strikes Down Tariffs Imposed Under the IEEPA – What Affected Importers Can Do Right Now, we are providing the latest updates regarding the recovery of these duties.

On March 4, 2026, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources, Judge Richard K. Eaton of the United States Court of International Trade (CIT), the judge who has been assigned to all cases concerning the IEEPA tariff refund cases, entered an order in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States directing the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to immediately begin taking steps to refund unlawfully collected IEEPA tariffs. In the order, the Court directed that “any and all unliquidated entries” that were entered subject to IEEPA duties must be liquidated “without regard” to the IEEPA duties, and that any liquidated entries for which liquidation is not final must be reliquidated without the IEEPA duties.

A closed-door hearing to discuss refund processes took place on Friday, March 6, 2026. In advance of that hearing, the government notified the Court that it could not currently comply with the Court’s order because it did not have the technology or the manpower. Using current technology, issuing all tariff refunds would take millions of manhours for all of the 53 million import entries at issue.

Jurisdictional Scope and Authority

The order specifically addresses the government’s expected argument that broad, across-the-board relief would resemble an impermissible “universal injunction.” However, Judge Eaton distinguishes this order from a so-called “universal injunction” by emphasizing that the CIT has exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction over the IEEPA tariff challenges and that Congress established the CIT with the intent that it have “national geographic jurisdiction” to maintain uniformity. The order also notes that the Chief Judge has indicated that Judge Eaton will be the only CIT judge hearing IEEPA refund cases, which the court cites as to avoid any “danger that another Judge, even one in [the CIT], will reach any contrary conclusions.”

Timeline Expectations and Potential Appeals

We still expect to see an appeal of this order from the government, which has given every indication that it intends to delay or challenge providing refunds, notwithstanding prior representations to the CIT. For example, the government sought to delay issuance of the mandate transferring jurisdiction back to the CIT from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit—the first step in the process of advancing litigation over refunds at the CIT.

Accordingly, even absent an appeal, importers should prepare for any refunds issued through administrative processes to take time. While the Court has directed CBP to liquidate or reliquidate non-final entries without application of the IEEPA duties, the order does not set a timeline.

Similarly, the statute authorizing the Court to order reliquidation of an entry does not impose a specific time frame within which CBP must reliquidate an entry. If the importer filed a protest, CBP has two years from the date the protest was filed to act on it, unless expedited review is requested by the importer. Given the volume of affected entries (potentially tens of millions), importers should expect delays.

Limitations of Relief

While Judge Eaton’s order provides relief for many importers, it does not redress the injury caused by the IEEPA duties for everyone. First, CBP is only required to reliquidate those liquidated entries that are “not final.” Neither the regulations nor the Court explain when a liquidated entry is “final” for purposes of refund rights, but for those entries, importers’ only remedy to recover refunds of IEEPA duties might be through litigation.

Downstream Impact and the Importer of Record

Second, while the order effectively mandates refunds for “importers of record,” it does not establish any mechanism for downstream parties that actually incurred the cost of the IEEPA duties. In many industries, the company that pays the tariffs at the time the goods are brought into the U.S. will be listed as the importer of record, but the economic burden of those costs is actually passed on to the ultimate recipient of the goods (i.e., distributors, retailers, manufacturers, or end consumers). Those parties may never realize the benefit of the refund. Under CBP regulations, when refunds are issued pursuant to liquidation or reliquidation of an entry, the refund payments are sent to the “importer of record” regardless of whether that party was in fact responsible for the costs of the tariffs.

There are a few administrative mechanisms available to seek the distribution of refunds to parties other than the importer of record on file at the time of entry. As a result, we expect to see an uptick in legal disputes arising over contractual rights to those funds or claims from downstream parties.

This article summarizes aspects of the law and opinions that are solely those of the authors. This ‎article does not constitute legal advice. For legal advice regarding your situation, you should ‎contact an attorney.‎