Months after IEEPA tariffs were struck down, some refunds remain caught between Customs and the courts

In April 2025, the Trump administration introduced one of the most sweeping economic and trade policy decisions in decades: tariffs by way of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. The policy remained in effect until Feb.ruary 20th, 2026, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the implementation of tariffs by way of IEEPA was an overreach of executive power. As a result of the policy being ruled unconstitutional, Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) must refund importers overpaid duties during the time the policy was in effect but did not mandate one process by which to process and distribute refunds.

Several months into the ruling, the process for claiming a refund has changed, which Freight Right examines here. Importers early on could attempt to claim their refund themselves on behalf of their organization or hire outside help, a customs broker or legal counsel, to do it for them. Now, the process has moved away from self- service to all but requiring, often pricy, outside expertise to make sense of options available to importers if the entries are liquidated, when they were liquidated and whether a protest, a formal challenge contesting the final liquidation and duty assessment, is open and fits in CBP’s current refund rules.

One refund, several paths for importers to consider

CBP created the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries system, (CAPE), to process IEEPA refunds. But CAPE did not cover every affected entry at once.

CBP rolled out phases, currently Phase 1 through to Phase 3 at the time of writing, to manage the massive volume of claims and to allow for space to build the complex CAPE system required for processing billions of dollars in refunds.

Phase 1, the first phase CBP introduced, allowed for refunds on unliquidated entries that were filed between January 1st andthrough March 31st, 2025, and recently liquidated entries.

Phase 2 was rolled out in June 2026. Phase 2 added to the criteria of what types of entries were eligible for refunds entries flagged for reconciliation. Reconciliation means that two entries that paid the same tariff may not qualify for the same refund process. Liquidation, the point at which CBP finalizes the duties owed on that shipment, was and still is the main reason why there’s this distinction. The liquidation date can determine which administrative or legal options remain available for the importer’s entries.

The CAPE window and protest deadline are different

One major source of confusion for importers navigating IEEPA refunds is the distinction between CAPE's processing windows and the separate statutory period for filing a customs protest. When CBP launched CAPE Phase 1 on April 20, 2026, the system initially accepted certain unliquidated entries and certain liquidated entries only if they were within 80 days of liquidation. Separately, customs law generally provides 180 days from liquidation to file a protest challenging certain CBP decisions. An entry could be outside CAPE's initial 80-day processing window while still being within the 180-day protest period. The expiration of the CAPE window did not necessarily mean that the importer had lost all available avenues for seeking relief.

A protest is a formal way to challenge certain CBP decisions, but protests are not automatically required before every IEEPA refund lawsuit. Attorneys may still use protective protests in some cases to preserve an administrative option before the deadline closes.

Protests create an additional consideration for importers seeking IEEPA refunds. An entry that is the subject of a protest may not be processed through CAPE in the same manner as an otherwise eligible entry. For certain protests that challenge only IEEPA duties, CBP has provided a process under which an importer may withdraw the protest and submit the entry through CAPE instead, provided the entry otherwise meets CAPE's eligibility requirements. Importers should consider the relationship between the protest and CAPE before withdrawing a protest, particularly because the two processes have different eligibility requirements and deadlines.

The situation becomes more complicated when a protest challenges issues beyond IEEPA duties. In those circumstances, CAPE, the customs protest process, and litigation may all be relevant to the same entry, but each serves a different purpose and may have different eligibility requirements and deadlines. An importer cannot determine its available refund or challenge options simply by looking at the total amount of IEEPA duties it paid. An importer may have one entry still eligible for CAPE, another approaching its protest deadline and another already involved in litigation.

Why some IEEPA tariff claims are still going to court

Customs entries that have already become final can present a different problem. Once an entry reaches final liquidation, CBP may no longer be able to address it through the same process used for newer entries.

John Anwesen, founder and principal of Lighthill PC, an international trade law firm headquartered in Washington D.C., commented, “Phase 3 gives importers another reason to consider filing a CIT action now. For eligible entries, a court order directing reliquidation could put an importer on a clearer path to a refund of those duties.”

Some plaintiffs have sought class-wide relief, different from simply consolidating existing outstanding lawsuits. A class action could potentially cover additional importers who meet a court-approved definition. Until a court defines that scope, importers outside existing cases cannot assume they will be covered.

The relationship between importers, law firms and customs brokers

The uncertainty surrounding the refund process also creates an economic consideration for importers. Freight Right reports that aAttorneys it has consulted have quoted approximately $10,000 to $15,000 for certain Court of International Trade matters involving IEEPA refunds, Freight Right reports, although actual fees may vary depending on the law firm, the scope of the engagement, and how the case develops. For an importer seeking a $15,000 refund, a $10,000 legal bill could make litigation economically impractical. The calculation looks very different for a company seeking $250,000 or $1 million. For example, a $10,000 legal expense could consume a substantial portion of a $15,000 potential refund, while representing a much smaller percentage of a $250,000 or $1 million recovery.

Importers should therefore distinguish between their total IEEPA duty payments and the portion of their potential refund associated with entries that cannot otherwise be resolved through the administrative refund process. This cost differential helps explain why broader judicial relief, if available, could have particular economic significance for importers with relatively smaller individual refund claims.

How customs brokers &and attorneys are finding common professional ground for importers

The process for importers claiming refunds has continued to evolve with each new phase CBP introduces. Phase 1 and 2 were brand new for importers. New tools, new processes, new issues arising with these tools and processes, but importers had the choice of going through the process of figuring all this out for themselves or turning to a customs broker or lawyer to have them do it for them. With Phase 3, the process has become far less friendly to self-service solutions and more litigious, all but requiring off- the- bat expertise from lawyers and customs brokers alike.

Prior to Phase 3, customs brokers and attorneys could help importers file for a refund. Since Phase 3 and the process of tariff recovery becoming more involved and less conducive to self-service, both still can still help importers file for refunds, but the key difference is often cost. Working exclusively with an attorney means the importer is paying hourly attorney fees to handle everything —- from entry evaluation through to filing the protest and beyond. Custom broker-attorney partnerships are becoming more common, Freight Right has found, where customs teams identify where IEEPA duties were paid, calculate the amounts involved, verify liquidation dates and sort entries by procedural status and attorneys handle the legal side, including jurisdiction, litigation strategy and court filings. Freight Right said tThat distinction matters most for importers with large numbers of entries, where a single refund figure can hide major differences among individual shipments.

“CBP’s Phase 3 announcement makes clear that filing a CIT action can expedite refunds for certain entries. Phase 3 specifically covers importers that have already filed suit and obtained court orders directing reliquidation,.”, Anwesen said.

The refund process is still evolving for importers

The Supreme Court answered whether the tariffs were lawful. It did not create one process for returning every dollar collected under them and instead deferred to CBP to resolve the issue. Since the gates opened for refunds, importers have found that some entries can move through CBP's administrative process. Others are affected by protests, final liquidation or ongoing litigation.