Court Of International Trade Stays Its Order Directing Customs & Border Protection To Refund IEEPA Tariffs

On March 6, 2026, Judge Richard K. Eaton of the Court of International Trade (CIT), suspended his March 4, 2026, order (as amended on March 5, 2026, the Refund Order) in Atmus Filtration v. CBP, No. 1:26-cv-01259 (Ct. Int'l Trade). The Refund Order required U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to refund all duties collected from importers pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). While Judge Eaton had insisted at the March 4, 2026, hearing that CBP begin issuing refunds “now,” the declaration submitted by a CBP official following that hearing suggested that CBP faced substantial technical and legal hurdles to complying with the Refund Order, and Judge Eaton appears to have agreed. 

The stay has a few immediate practical implications for companies that have IEEPA tariff refund claims:

• The March 6, 2026, order (Suspension Order) that suspended the Refund Order states only that the Refund Order “is suspended to the extent that it directs immediate compliance.” There is no expiration date on the Suspension Order, so the Refund Order is suspended until further notice by the court. 
• Importers that have paid IEEPA tariffs but have not yet filed suit in the CIT would be well served to do so as soon as possible to preserve their rights. Based on the declaration of Brandon Lord, Executive Director of the Trade Programs Directorate, Office of Trade, at CBP (the Lord Declaration), CBP appears to be claiming that for more than 15 million entries that liquidated more than 90 days prior to the Refund Order, such entries are “beyond” the period for which CBP may voluntarily reliquidate the entry. Moreover, only parties to the litigation are likely to be able to enforce any further orders issued against CBP regarding the refund process.
• The Lord Declaration states that CBP proposes to address the various technical and staffing challenges that CBP is claiming would prevent CBP from complying with the Refund Order, by developing a “new functionality” in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), which is the centralized digital system for processing imports and exports used by CBP (the CBP Proposal). The CBP Proposal will, among other things, (i) require importers to file a “declaration” in ACE to obtain a refund and (ii) not be ready for approximately 45 days, or by Monday, April 20, 2026.
• The fact that the Refund Order was hurriedly and unexpectedly issued in a nonconsolidated case before the CIT and then suspended just 48 hours later, together with certain of the facts alleged in the Lord Declaration, among other issues, suggests that the refund process may be less smooth and straightforward than anticipated, and insufficient detail regarding the CBP Proposal is available to assess in any detail how it may impact importers' rights. 
• Since Judge Eaton indicated that he is the only judge within the CIT who will hear cases pertaining to IEEPA tariff refunds and there have been no developments in the consolidated case of AGS Company Automotive Solutions v. CBP, No. 1:25-cv-00255 (Ct. Int'l Trade), we fully expect that any relevant developments regarding the process for obtaining IEEPA tariff refunds will come from the Atmus  litigation.

Apart from the general takeaways noted above, the Lord Declaration itself contained a number of revelations that, if true, may impact realistic estimates of when importers can expect refunds. For example:

• CBP emphasized the unprecedented scale of the IEEPA tariff refunds. Over 330,000 importers have filed over 53 million entries that may require refunds, totaling over $166 billion before interest. Significantly, the Lord Declaration suggests that the last mass refund exercise (related to Harbor Maintenance Fees in 1998) took “several years to complete” as well as requiring updates to CBP's governing regulations.
• CBP contends that the ACE platform is technically incapable of processing the IEEPA refunds as directed by Judge Eaton. The agency cited a number of technical reasons why compliance is impossible, including, but not limited to, the fact that importers frequently combined IEEPA duties with other special duties assessed under Chapter 99.
• CBP also claimed that it is technically incapable of excluding IEEPA duties as entries liquidate due to a range of reasons. As a practical matter, this means that importers that file Post-Summary Corrections to exclude IEEPA duties are unlikely to obtain a positive response from CBP until the issue is resolved. CBP also contended that interest payments cannot be calculated automatically in all cases.

Also on March 6, 2026, Judge Eaton ordered CBP to “file a short report describing the progress Customs has made toward the development of a process to issue refunds of IEEPA duties paid with interest,” which must be filed “by 2:00 p.m. EDT on Thursday, March 12, 2026.” Further detail on the CBP Proposal is therefore expected with CBP's report on March 12, 2026. 

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.