CBP Provides Further Details on Planned IEEPA Refund System

On March 6, 2026, Dickinson Wright reported on a declaration submitted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, in which CBP explained that it currently lacks the operational capability to immediately process refunds of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) but outlined a proposed process for administering those refunds through the Automated Commercial Environment (“ACE”). The Atmus case, which is proceeding through the Court of International Trade (“CIT”), appears to be the lead case in determining how IEEPA refunds will be administered.  Judge Eaton, presiding over the case, previously ordered on March 5, 2026, that CBP immediately liquidate/reliquidate all entries “without regard to the IEEPA duties,” as directed by the Supreme Court. Judge Eaton then suspended the immediate effect of that order pending CBP’s proposal.

On March 12, 2026, CBP submitted an additional declaration to the CIT in Atmus, providing further updates on the agency’s efforts to implement a process for refunding duties imposed under IEEPA.

In the declaration, CBP confirmed that it is developing a functionality, called the “Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries” (“CAPE”), within ACE to process IEEPA duty refunds. CBP indicated that the CAPE system is being built to allow importers or their brokers to submit refund requests identifying entries on which IEEPA duties were paid. CBP also reported that development of the CAPE system is underway and will likely be implemented in phases. According to the declaration, the initial phase is expected to cover the majority of standard entries, while more complex entry types may require additional development and implementation in later phases.

At this stage, the refund process described by CBP remains proposed and is still subject to review and approval by the CIT. Later that same day, Judge Eaton issued an order noting that CBP’s progress in developing the CAPE system appears “satisfactory” and that the agency is on track to “timely complete” the process. The court also continued the suspension of its March 5, 2026 order directing CBP to immediately liquidate entries without IEEPA duties, allowing CBP additional time to complete development of the CAPE system. In addition, Judge Eaton ordered CBP to report by March 19, 2026, on the progress of the system.

In the meantime, importers that paid IEEPA duties should identify and compile accurate records related to entries on which IEEPA tariffs were paid and compile relevant information into a spreadsheet, including entry numbers and supporting documentation, in anticipation of potential refund filings once the CBP’s system becomes available.

To recap the implementation of IEEPA tariffs (see the Table below), beginning in February 2025, the Trump Administration invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs through a series of Executive Orders addressing what the Administration described as national emergencies related to trade and industrial capacity. Importers were required to declare these duties under special Chapter 99 Harmonized Tariff Schedule classifications at the time of entry. The IEEPA tariffs were struck down in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump on February 20, 2026.

It is also important to remember the “unstacking” rule, under which products subject to certain Section 232 tariffs were not subject to the applicable IEEPA tariffs. On January 30, 2026, CBP issued an Overview of U.S. Tariffs, which illustrates the application of the unstacking rule as follows. Importers should carefully review the interaction of these tariffs when identifying potential refund amounts for IEEPA duties.

Importers should also be aware that the CIT has issued an Administrative Order consolidating and staying cases involving refunds of IEEPA tariffs. While importers may choose to file separate actions with the CIT to pursue refunds, such cases may be stayed along with the existing matters while the court continues to oversee CBP’s development and implementation of a refund process.

Separately, importers should also continue to monitor other trade developments that may affect the tariffs applicable to their imports. In particular, on February 20, 2026, the President proclaimed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 that a temporary 10% tariff would be imposed on most imports for up to 150 days. Effective February 24, 2026, the new Section 122 tariffs replaced the IEEPA tariffs that were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In addition, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”) has also initiated Section 301 investigations addressing two separate issues affecting U.S. commerce. One investigation covers 60 major U.S. trading partners to examine whether their failure to effectively prohibit imports of goods produced with forced labor constitutes an unreasonable or discriminatory practice that burdens U.S. commerce, while a separate investigation focuses on structural excess capacity in manufacturing sectors, including industries such as steel, semiconductors, batteries, and automobiles, in certain economies, including China, the European Union, Japan, and others.

Accordingly, for many importers, the most practical step at this stage may be to focus on organizing entry information and supporting records while monitoring developments in the ongoing litigation and CBP’s implementation of the refund process. In the meantime, Dickinson Wright will continue to monitor developments in the Atmus litigation and CBP’s implementation of the IEEPA refund process.