The U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) issued a significant ruling on March 4, 2026 that creates new considerations for importers seeking refunds of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”). The CIT’s Order in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States directs U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to liquidate unliquidated entries subject to IEEPA duties—and to reliquidate any liquidated entries that are not yet final—in both cases “without regard to” IEEPA duties. While this is a welcome development for the import community, it leaves critical questions unanswered and is unlikely to be the final word.
As we advised following the Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026 decision striking down IEEPA tariffs, we continue to recommend that most importers file individual CIT actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i).
1. What the Atmus Order Does—and Does Not—Do
The CIT’s Order correctly recognizes that all importers are entitled to benefit from the Supreme Court’s ruling in V.O.S. Selections, which held IEEPA tariffs unconstitutional. By directing CBP to liquidate and reliquidate entries “without regard to” IEEPA duties, the Order signals that those duties should not be collected. However the order leaves a facial ambiguity regarding the issue of refunds: there is a question of whether the order to liquidate or reliquidate “without regard to” IEEPA duties necessarily directs CBP to pay refunds. At minimum, the order does not direct or establish a clear mechanism for importers to obtaining their refunds.
This ambiguity has practical consequences. If CBP resists interpreting the Order to require payment of a refund, plaintiff in the Atmus case would need to engage in further litigation to obtain an order specifically directing CBP to issue refunds.
The broader question is whether the CIT has the authority to order universal relief for all importers affected by the IEEPA tariffs. The government has certainly signaled that it does not concede that the CIT has such authority. Importers that have not filed their own CIT cases may be compromised in their ability to obtain refunds.
2. Key Issues for Importers to Consider
No Refund Process Ordered
- The government may take the position that the Order does not on its face require CBP to pay refunds, nor does it establish any procedure for doing so. We interpret “without regard to” the IEEPA duties to mean those duties should not be collected. But refund payment is a separate and (arguably) unresolved question. Importers that have filed individual § 1581(i) actions will be positioned to seek enforcement orders directly applicable to their entries.
No Relief for Finally Liquidated Entries
- The Order does not address entries that have reached final liquidation (entries that have been liquidated for over 180 days, and thus are no longer protestable). In our view, an individual § 1581(i) CIT action may be the only available path to recover duties paid on finally liquidated entries. Importers waiting on the sidelines may find those claims foreclosed.
Government Will Dispute Coverage of Liquidated-Not-Final Entries
- The government has argued—including during oral argument in the Atmus case—that all importers should be required to file individual CIT actions to obtain refunds for any entries that have liquidated. At minimum, this signals a high likelihood that the government will appeal the Atmus Order on this issue. Importers with pending § 1581(i) cases can sidestep this dispute entirely.
Government Will Dispute Universal Applicability
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit previously vacated the CIT’s original order in V.O.S. Selections on the grounds that the CIT cannot issue broad relief to entities that are not parties before it. We expect the government to raise the same challenge to the Atmus Order on appeal. Importers with their own filed actions would be insulated from any adverse outcome on that appeal.
Individual CIT Action Remains the Recommended Course
- As we advised prior to the issuance of the Atmus Order, we fully expect the government to take all available steps to delay or minimize refunds. The Atmus Order contains multiple ambiguities the government is likely to exploit. An individual § 1581(i) action—seeking a specific order directing CBP to refund duties to a named plaintiff—remains the most direct and defensible path to recovery.
3. Practical Guidance for Importers
Importers that paid IEEPA duties should take the following steps promptly:
- Ensure they have active access to the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) so they can directly monitor the status of their entries and any duty refunds, liquidations, reliquidations, or other actions taken by CBP.
- Monitor the liquidation dates of any IEEPA entries to track applicable protest deadlines. CBP protests may only be filed up to 180 days after liquidation. Importers should consider filing protests for any entries approaching this deadline.
- Identify and audit all customs entries subject to IEEPA duties, noting whether each entry is unliquidated, liquidated-not-final, or finally liquidated.
- For entries that have liquidated (or may soon liquidate), evaluate the filing of an individual § 1581(i) action before final liquidation forecloses that option.
- Monitor developments in the Atmus case and related government appeals, which are likely to shape the broader refund landscape in the coming months.
- Do not assume that the Atmus Order or any subsequent broad ruling will automatically result in CBP processing refunds—active participation in CIT proceedings provides the strongest protection.
- Enroll in CBP’s ACH Electronic Refunds program through the ACE Portal, if they have not done so already. CBP is currently issuing all refunds electronically. Directions and additional resources are available at CSMS # 67513690.
4. Conclusion
The Atmus Order is a meaningful step forward for importers seeking IEEPA tariff refunds. But it is not the final step, and it leaves open significant questions that the government is likely to contest vigorously. The prudent course remains unchanged: importers should evaluate their entries, assess their potential claims, and consider filing individual § 1581(i) protective actions at the CIT. That approach provides the most timely and secure path to recovery.
ENDNOTES
[1] Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, Court of International Trade, No. 26-01259 (Order issued Mar. 4, 2026).
[2] V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, Court of International Trade, aff’d, Federal Circuit, Feb. 20, 2026.
[3] 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) confers residual jurisdiction on the CIT over civil actions against the United States arising out of laws providing for tariffs, duties, fees, or other taxes on the importation of merchandise.
