Thompson Coburn LLP are most popular:
- within Energy and Natural Resources topic(s)
| THOMPSON COBURN TRADE ALERT – IMPORTS | |
| HEADLINE | Court of International Trade Rules on IEEPA Preliminary Injunction |
| DATE | December 19, 2025 |
| AGENCY | (N/A); U.S. Court of International Trade |
| EFFECTIVE DATES | N/A |
| BACKGROUND | In an attempt to preserve their right to recover the
country-specific duties paid under IEEPA (Reciprocal tariffs, China, Canada, Mexico) in such case that the Supreme Court
finds the tariffs are unlawful, a number of importers have filed
actions at the Court of International Trade. Several of these cases
were consolidated, with the lead case as AGS Company Automative
Solutions. Importers requested a preliminary injunction to suspend liquidation of their entries subject to IEEPA tariffs, arguing that (1) liquidation functions as "a point of no return," (2) CBP's collection of IEEPA tariffs is purely ministerial and cannot be protested, and (3) the other legal factors – whether an injunction is in the public interest and balancing the hardships between the parties – weigh in favor of plaintiffs. The Government responded that it did not intend to oppose the refund of tariffs, and that it would honor the Court's authority to order reliquidation of entries subject to the challenged IEEPA tariffs and refund any duties. |
| DETAILS | On December 15, 2025, the Court of International Trade
("CIT") denied importers' request for a preliminary
injunction to suspend liquidation of entries subject to IEEPA
tariffs, ruling that suspension of liquidation is not necessary due
to the Trump Administration's position that it will not oppose
refunding duties should the Supreme Court rule against the
government and order a refund. The CIT emphasized the
Government's multiple statements that it will not oppose or
object to the CIT's authority to order reliquidation, with a
refund of all duties assessed, with interest, should the Supreme
Court find the tariffs were unlawfully imposed in V.O.S.
Selections v. Trump. The CIT noted that the Government cannot
assume a contrary position at a later date to argue refunds are not
available. The Court stressed that, while CBP doesn't have authority to rule on a protest of the liquidation of an entry with the IEEPA tariffs that are covered by the litigation, the CIT has jurisdiction over the issue and can provide remedial relief for these plaintiffs should the Supreme Court confirm the unlawfulness of the tariffs, regardless of whether the entries have been liquidated by CBP. In short, this decision indicates that preserving one's rights is not likely to be achieved through the liquidation or protest process, and that filing a case at the CIT may be necessary to preserve an importer's rights. |
| BASIS | International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq.); 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i). |
| CITE | Opinion: AGS Co. Auto. Sol. v. United States (Dec. 15,
2025). V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, 149 F.4th 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2025), cert. granted, No. 25-250 (U.S. Sept. 9, 2025). |
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.
