Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

U.S. Government Files Appeal of CIT Decision Ordering Universal Refunds of IEEPA Tariffs to All Importers

By Nithya Nagarajan, Cortney Morgan & Ruslan Klafehn on June 3, 2026
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
US Capital Building.

In the latest developments regarding tariffs paid under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (“IEEPA”), the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has formally appealed the U.S. Court of International Trade’s (“CIT”) April 17, 2026, universal injunction ordering refunds to all importers to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”).  The DOJ has also petitioned the Federal Circuit to direct the CIT that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) Commissioner Rodney Scott may not be compelled to testify before the CIT regarding CBP’s anticipated timing to comply with IEEPA refunds for all entries. 

The CIT’s April 17, 2026 injunction ordered CBP to refund IEEPA duties paid on three categories of entries: (1) unliquidated entries; (2) liquidated entries for which liquidation is not final; (3) finally liquidated entries (entries more than 90 days past liquidation).  The CIT had initially suspended immediate application of the injunction but recently lifted that suspension.

As previously reported, the DOJ made its intention to appeal the April 17th injunction, stating that the injunction, which directed refunds of all IEEPA duties exceeds the CIT’s authority because CBP cannot reliquidate or refund duties without a court order.  The DOJ distinguished between three categories of entries for which IEEPA duties were paid: (1) unliquidated or nonfinal entries; (2) entries that are finally liquidated and the importer has filed a case with the CIT; (3) entries that are finally liquidated and the importer has not filed a case with the CIT. 

For category (1) entries, CBP has begun processing refunds through Phase 1 of the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (“CAPE”).  The DOJ’s position with respect to categories (2) and (3) is that CBP is not permitted to reliquidate finally liquidated entries absent a court order.  For importers that have filed cases at the CIT challenging the collection of IEEPA tariffs, i.e. category (2) entries, DOJ noted that the CIT has declined to issue the required importer-specific relief necessary for CBP to process refunds.  For importers that have not filed cases at the CIT, the DOJ’s apparent position is that CBP cannot lawfully refund the IEEPA duties paid because the importer has not filed a case.  This third category of entries will likely be at the heart of the Federal Circuit appeal.  As the DOJ stated in its petition to the Federal Circuit regarding Commissioner Scott’s testimony, federal courts are limited to administering complete relief between the parties in litigation. 

In the memorandum to the Federal Circuit, the Government has affirmed its position that it cannot lawfully refund paid IEEPA duties on finally liquidated entries without a court order specific to each importer.  If the Federal Circuit agrees with the Government, then importers will likely be required to file complaints with the CIT to seek refunds for IEEPA duties paid on finally liquidated entries.  However, at this time, all indications are that CBP will continue to operate CAPE Phase 1 and process refunds for unliquidated or nonfinal entries.  We recommend contacting your Husch Blackwell attorney to determine the best approach for your situation.

The Husch Blackwell International Trade and Supply Chain team will continue to monitor and provide updates on this case as they become available. If you have company specific questions or concerns, please contact your Husch Blackwell attorney.

Tags: Trump Tariffs
Photo of Nithya Nagarajan Nithya Nagarajan

Nithya’s extensive background in U.S. trade issues spans 25 years and includes various roles in a number of federal government agencies, including the Department of Commerce Department of Justice, and the U.S. Court of International Trade. She assists clients with administrative and regulatory…

Nithya’s extensive background in U.S. trade issues spans 25 years and includes various roles in a number of federal government agencies, including the Department of Commerce Department of Justice, and the U.S. Court of International Trade. She assists clients with administrative and regulatory actions before the Department of Commerce, International Trade Commission and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and defends clients in appeals before the Court of International Trade, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, NAFTA panels and the World Trade Organization. In addition to her body of U.S. experience, Nithya is also well-versed in international trade issues in China and India.

Read more about Nithya NagarajanEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Cortney Morgan Cortney Morgan

An experienced attorney in the area of international trade and supply chain issues, Cortney advises foreign and domestic clients on all aspects of international trade regulation, planning and compliance, including import (customs), export controls, economic sanctions, embargoes, international trade agreements and preference programs.

Read more about Cortney MorganEmailCortney's Linkedin Profile
Photo of Ruslan Klafehn Ruslan Klafehn

A former attorney in the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, Ruslan advises clients on U.S. trade law to help maximize commercial opportunity while minimizing regulatory risk and penalties.

Read more about Ruslan KlafehnEmailRuslan's Linkedin Profile
  • Posted in:
    Tax
  • Blog:
    International Trade Insights
  • Organization:
    Husch Blackwell LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo