Court Of International Trade Orders Customs And Border Protection To Refund IEEPA Tariffs

In a significant development, on March 4, 2026, Judge Richard K. Eaton of the Court of International Trade (CIT) ordered U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to refund all duties collected from importers pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last month in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 2026 WL 477534 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2026). Hundreds of IEEPA refund cases have been consolidated and subject to an automatic stay upon filing since last year, pending the Supreme Court's decision in Learning Resources  (see AGS Company Automotive Solutions v. CBP, No. 1:25-cv-00255) (Ct. Int'l Trade). While Judge Eaton's Order reflects an intention to require prompt administrative refunds of IEEPA tariffs, it is unclear whether the Government will appeal or seek to avoid compliance, and accordingly, importers with IEEPA refund claims should continue to bring those claims in the CIT in order to preserve their rights in an uncertain environment.

Judge Eaton's order was issued in Atmus Filtration v. CBP, No. 1:26-cv-01259, an unconsolidated case filed just last week, on February 27, 2026. The plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent CBP from liquidating any entries on which the plaintiff paid IEEPA duties.

Various points of note emerged from the order and the hearing:

• Judge Eaton's order appears to be intended to grant all importers that paid IEEPA-based tariffs full relief. Specifically, the orderdirects CBP to liquidate “any and all unliquidated entries that were entered subject to the IEEPA duties without regard to the IEEPA duties.” For liquidated entries, CBP must reliquidate the entries “without regard to IEEPA duties.” The order does not impose a deadline for CBP's compliance or address the calculation of interest. 
• Prior to this order, the specific procedure that the CIT might adopt for processing refunds was unknown. The order appears to contemplate an administrative — rather than judicial — procedure for transmitting refunds to importers, and Judge Eaton indicated at the hearing that CBP must start issuing refunds “now” using CBP's “regular procedures.” The Department of Justice (DOJ), which represents CBP and the United States in the case, resisted this approach, claiming that an entry-by-entry review was required to process refunds. Judge Eaton stated that the amounts to be refunded should be readily identifiable from entry documentation and suggested that technology and automation should reduce or eliminate the need for manual entry-by-entry review.
• Nevertheless, the DOJ requested that the CIT pause or stay the relief ordered to give CBP time to assess procedural mechanisms for refunds. Judge Eaton declined to do so. Instead, he set a hearing for Friday, March 6, 2026, at 10:00am ET and instructed the DOJ to come to the hearing prepared to discuss how refunds would actually be executed. 
• The order states that Judge Eaton is “the only judge who will hear cases pertaining to the refund of IEEPA duties” pursuant to an instruction from the Chief Judge of the CIT. Judge Eaton signaled that the CIT expects concrete progress from CBP. The immediate next steps will be determined at the upcoming hearing. Judge Eaton indicated he was prepared to issue additional direction if CBP did not promptly begin a refund process. 

It remains possible that the DOJ will appeal the order. However, no appeal has been filed as of this writing and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the CAFC) denied the DOJ's request to stay the issuance of the “mandate” (a technical procedure that restores the lower court's subject matter jurisdiction over the case following the final disposition of an appeal). 

The CIT's Administrative Order 25-02, issued on December 23, 2025, ordered that all unassigned and new IEEPA refund cases filed after the date of the Administrative Order would be “automatically” stayed pending a decision by the Supreme Court in V.O.S. Selections. As of this writing, the stay has not been lifted for the consolidated case. However, Judge Eaton lifted the stay in the Atmus case the same day on which the CIT held its hearing. 

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.