Update on IEEPA Refunds: Potential Universal Relief for Liquidated and Final Entries
On May 27, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued an order in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. et al. v. United States, Court No. 25-00066. The order reviewed CBP's approach to refunding IEEPA duties for liquidated and final entries and considered whether to grant refunds to all affected importers through a universal injunction, including those that did not bring suit at the CIT. The Government opposed the order by invoking the Apex Doctrine, which generally protects high-ranking officials from testifying absent exceptional circumstances. On that basis, the Government argued that Commissioner Scott need not testify and that lower-ranking CBP officials responsible for the CAPE process were better positioned to answer the court's questions. The Government urged the court to maintain the stay on immediate, universal refunds, citing systems limitations and the complexity of processing refunds across all affected entries. But the court was unpersuaded and left in place its requirement for briefing and Commissioner Scott's appearance at the June 9 hearing.
In practical terms, importers should take three steps. First, closely track the liquidation status of all entries on which IEEPA duties were paid. Second, use CAPE where available for unliquidated and still-protestable entries. Third, consider filing protective protests on liquidated entries approaching the end of the protest window; this preserves their rights while the CIT determines the manner through which importers can receive refunds for liquidated and final entries.
On Section 122 Refunds: No Process for Refunds Yet
On May 7, 2026, the CIT held that the Government’s 10% global tariffs imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 are unlawful and exceed the President's statutory authority. The ruling came in the consolidated cases State of Oregon, et al. v. Trump, Court No. 26-01472, and Burlap and Barrel, Inc. v. Trump, Court No. 26-01606. The CIT invalidated the tariffs but declined to grant nationwide relief. It issued a permanent injunction only for the two private importer plaintiffs and the State of Washington, permitting them to stop paying Section 122 duties while most other importers remain outside the injunction’s scope. CBP is therefore expected to continue assessing and collecting Section 122 tariffs from non-plaintiff importers while the case proceeds on appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Section 122 refunds are not currently available through CAPE. Given the limited scope of the injunction, many importers are evaluating with counsel whether affirmative steps are warranted to preserve refund rights. Those steps include bringing their own litigation at the CIT; seeking to intervene in existing Section 122 cases; or taking other measures to protect claims while the appeals proceed.