Rimon’s Tariff Resource Center

IEEPA TARIFF REFUNDS PROCESS – NEXT STEPS

By: Sandra Lee Bell · September 3, 2026

I. RECENT UPDATES BY U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (“CBP”) ON UPCOMING PHASES OF THE CAPE PROCESSING OF IEEPA TARIFF REFUNDS

As is generally known by now, CBP has publicly stated that it is implementing the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) functionality within the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) for processing requests for refunds of IEEPA duties (plus interest) via a phased development approach, adding more functionality in subsequent phases for more complicated scenarios.

• To date, CBP has confirmed that it is currently operating Phases 1 and 2 of the CAPE IEEPA duty refunds processing:
  • Phase 1: certain unliquidated entries and certain entries within 80 days of liquidation.
  • Phase 2: entries flagged for reconciliation where the reconciliation entry is not yet on file.  [1]
• As to upcoming phases, in response to an FAQ shown on its website as “Updated 6/24/2026”, CBP has stated:

“At this time, CBP is evaluating functionality for the following types of entries in subsequent phases of CAPE, in accordance with appropriate statutory authority or court order. Further communications will be issued as additional capabilities are developed.

Entries designated on a drawback claim
Entries covered by an open protest
Entries not filed in ACE, and entries without a liquidation status in ACE
Entries subject to Antidumping/Countervailing Duties (AD/CVD), for which the Department of Commerce (DOC) has issued liquidation instructions, that are pending liquidation in accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d)
Entries for which liquidation is final.”

(Emphasis added) [2]

• More recently, in a Declaration filed on 8-25-2026, with the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”), stated to be in response to an order from the CIT issued on August 5, 2026, CBP Executive Director Brandon Lord provided a further update in which he stated, in part, the following [3]:

…

1. 5. As of 3pm eastern time on Friday, August 21, 2026, approximately $132.5 billion in both potential and certified refunds have been accepted for processing in CAPE. Of this total amount, refunds (duties plus interest) of approximately $106.6 billion have been completed using the CAPE Refund component, certified by the agency, and sent to the U.S. Department of Treasury (“Treasury”) for disbursement. CBP’s financial accounting system receives updates from Treasury that indicate these CBP certified refunds are being regularly dispersed. CBP continues to review and finalize the outstanding potential refunds via CAPE’s Review and Liquidation/Reliquidation component.
   6. As of 3pm eastern time on Friday, August 21, 2026, 22,170 refunds, totaling approximately $1.7 billion have not been transmitted to Treasury because Automated Clearing House account information has not been provided by the importer of record or its authorized CBP Form 4811 designee.
   7. At 5am eastern time on Monday, June 29, 2026, CBP successfully deployed new CAPE functionality for use by importers and their brokers in ACE. This new functionality permits importers and their brokers to include entries on a CAPE declaration that are unliquidated (or that have liquidated within the preceding 80 days) and that were flagged for reconciliation, but for which no Reconciliation Entry (Entry Type 09) has been filed. As of 3pm eastern time on Friday, August 21, 2026, 2.3 million entries flagged for reconciliation have been successfully filed in CAPE and are set for processing.
   8. CBP has temporarily delayed the deployment of CAPE Phase 3, which covers finally liquidated entries filed by plaintiffs for which the Court has ordered reliquidation. This delay is necessary for CBP to build new validations that ensure no other duty adjustments are made to finally liquidated entries outside of the IEEPA duty refunds. Importantly, these new validations will also account for improper reporting of IEEPA duties by the trade community on the original entries. This temporary delay applies only to the forthcoming CAPE Phase 3 and will allow CBP to ensure it complies fully with the Court’s orders to reliquidate impacted entries. Existing CAPE functionality for Phases 1 and 2 remains fully operational and is not affected by this change. …

(Emphasis added.)

II. RECAP OF CAPE IEEPA TARIFF REFUND PROCESS BACKGROUND

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026, decision in Learning Resources, [4]  in which the Court held that all tariffs assessed pursuant to IEEPA were unconstitutional and not authorized by law, Judge Richard Eaton, on March 4, 2026, issued the following order under the umbrella of one of the many pending court cases challenging the IEEPA tariffs:

“ORDERED that, with respect to any and all unliquidated entries that were entered subject to the IEEPA duties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection is hereby directed to liquidate those entries without regard to the IEEPA duties. Any liquidated entries for which liquidation is not final shall be reliquidated without regard to IEEPA duties.

See Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. U.S., CIT Court No. 26-01259, Document 21, filed 03/04/26 at 2- 3.

Also, because of the following statements made in the March 4^th CIT order, importers of goods covered by non-finally liquidated entries, no longer had to file a separate lawsuit to establish the illegality of the IEEPA Tariffs and consequent rights to refunds of those duties.

Plaintiff’s entries are among the millions of entries that were entered subject to IEEPA duties, which the Supreme Court ruled unlawful in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 2026 WL 477534 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2026). All importers of record whose entries were subject to IEEPA duties are entitled to the benefit of the Learning Resources decision.

Id.

On March 20, 2026, to encompass all unliquidated or all not finally liquidated entries, imposed by the various Executive Orders under IEEPA, (including IEEPA tariffs imposed separately on imports from Brazil and India), the CIT:

ORDERED that, with respect to any and all unliquidated entries that were entered subject to IEEPA duties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection is hereby directed to liquidate those entries without regard to the IEEPA duties. Any liquidated entries for which liquidation is not final shall be reliquidated without regard to those duties.

See Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. U.S., CIT Court No. 26-01259, Document 49, filed 3/20/2026.

Of important note, the CIT also stated as part of this amended order the following:

Considering that no resolution was reached with respect to the reliquidation of entries for which liquidation has become final, importers should be aware of the remedies available under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 (Protest against decisions of  decisions of Customs Service).

Id at 1.

After a series of status reports by CBP on the development of CAPE the CIT issued another order on March 27, 2026, that amended prior refund orders to now cover all IEEPA based tariffs were paid: “Any liquidated entries for which liquidation is final shall be reliquidated without regard to the IEEPA duties.”  See Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. U.S., CIT Court No. 26-01259, Document 50, filed 3/27/2026.

Notwithstanding that CAPE IEEPA refunds process became operational on April 20, 2026, and such refunds were being processed, on June 2, 2026, the U.S. filed notice of its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of the authority of the CIT to order immediate refunds to all importers who paid the unlawful IEEPA tariffs, including importers who have not filed a case in the CIT.  See Defendants’ Notice of Appeal in V.O.S. Selections, Inc., Et Al. V. Donald Trump, et al, CIT Court No. 25-00066, Document 91, filed 6/2/2026.

Later, in acknowledgement of the Government’s appeal of the prior orders, in an order issued on July 15, 2026, on the pending cases in litigation (3,700), the CIT directed CBP to provide refunds to the plaintiffs via the CAPE process. [5] Of note in connection with this order the CIT pointed out:

At various points and in various proceedings, the Government has represented that it will refund estimated IEEPA duty deposits to Plaintiffs that challenge the duties in court. To date, it has been the Government’s position that a court order directing the reliquidation of entries, whose liquidation has become final, would be necessary to provide the Government with the authority to reliquidate these finally liquidated entries and thus to provide complete relief to Plaintiffs in the cases. This order provides the Government with that legal authority.

See In Re Tariffs Collected: In Reliance On International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), CIT Order by Judge Eaton, Case 1:25-cv-00078-RKE Document 25-2 Filed 07/15/26.

Thus, even with a court order covering separate IEEPTA Tariff litigations brought under the CIT’s residual jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) plaintiff/importer still must use the CBP administrative CAPE process to receive IEEPA Tariff refunds. [6]  This in itself, seems to render the government’s claim that a court order is needed on a complaint-by-complaint basis to receive refunds of duties on finally liquidated entries, more technically than substantively based since there is no longer an argument regarding the illegality of the IEEPA tariffs.  The only apparent achievement from such complaints in a litigation before the CIT under its jurisdiction in Section 1581(i) will be to receive a court order that directs the plaintiff back to CBP to file a CAPE Declaration claim for the refunds.   However, as announced by CBP in the August 25, 2026 declaration by Executive Director Brandon Lord to the CIT, even the 3,700 adjudicated importer complaints will still be subject to the phased in ACE functionality of the CAPE process.

III.  POSSIBLE NEXT STEPS FOR IMPORTERS ENTITLED TO IEEPA TARFF REFUNDS

• Keep your Drawback Claims alive.  According to the CBP June 24, 2026 Update on CAPE posted on its website (discussed in Section I above), entries designated in a drawback claim are to be next in line in the CAPE Phase in process.  Therefore, if you have paid IEEPA duties on entries designated on a “drawback claim” under 19 U.S.C. § 1313^[7] (as was allowed to be done in connection with certain IEEPA based Tariffs,^[8]) you are likely in a “no-lose” situation because either you will be getting 99% of IEEPA duties back upon processing of the drawback claim, or you’re next in line to be able to file a CAPE Declaration to get 100% refunds of IEEPA duties paid if CBP elects not to process the drawback claim first.  With only a 1% difference in duty recovery between the CAPE IEEPA refund process and the payment of drawback, there is no practical reason to withdraw a pending drawback claim or to not file a new drawback claim covering IEEPA duties in order to be eligible to file a CAPE Declaration for receiving IEEPA tariff refunds.
• Be sure to File Timely Protests pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §1514.  The most significant next in line phase for CAPE processing may be “Entries covered by an open protest.”  A timely protest is one that is filed under Section 1514 within 180 days after the date of notice of liquidation or reliquidation, or the date of the decision, involving neither liquidation nor reliquidation.^[9]   The liquidation of an entry with the assessment of IEEPA tariffs that is protested timely is not finally liquidated.  Thus, despite the use of the term, “finally liquidated”, earlier by CBP to refer to entries that have been liquidated for more than 80 days for CAPE Declaration eligibility, for purpose of the protest statute, a customs decision or an entry liquidation is not considered to be “final” until after 180 days from the date liquidation (or after 180 days from the decision not involving a liquidation) without a timely filing of a protest under Section 1514.
• In other words, a timely filed protest under Section 1514 keeps the liquidation of the protested entry from becoming “final”.   Aso as previously expressly noted, the CIT in its March 20, 2026 Order, in Atmus Filtration, [10] expressly referenced the protest procedure under 19 U.S.C 1514 as another avenue (when available) to seek full refunds of IEEPA tariffs through its attendant administrative and judicial processes.
• Thus, by virtue of a timely filed Section 1514 protest on entries in which IEEPA duties have been paid, such entries are legally not within the scope of “finally liquidated entries” covered by the “temporarily delayed the deployment of CAPE Phase 3” described in the August 25, 2026 Declaration by CBP Executive Director Lord discussed above.  Instead, a timely filing of a protest under Section 1514, covering the liquidation of entries on which refunds of IEEPA duties were paid can create a “win-win” situation, allowing for CAPE Processing or judicial review, whichever comes first.  This is because under the U.S. Customs law and Regulations, the importer gets to decide how long it wishes to wait for an administrative decision on its protest of the IEEPA duties.

IV. How Can Importers’ Rights Under the Protest Procedures Co-exist with CAPE IEEPA Tariff Refunds Process?  

• First, either at the time of filing or at any time thereafter, any protest that only covers IEEPA Tariff Refunds should include a Request for Accelerated Disposition pursuant to 19 C.F.R. §174.22 to provide an avenue for judicial review if no CBP decision is made within the time period needed by the importer. ^[11]
• If after the request for accelerated disposition, CBP (per CBP Regulations, the Center Director) does not make a decision either to allow or deny the protest within 30 days, the protest per Section 174.22 is deemed denied, and the importer then can exercise the next option to seek Judicial Review of the deemed denial. The protestant in this instance has another 180 days to seek judicial review by the U.S. Court of International Trade under 28 U.S.C. 2632 where the CIT’s jurisdiction would be invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1581(a) to review a CBP protest decision.  Specifically in this regard, CBP Regulations provide as follows:

19 C.F.R. §174.31 Judicial review of denial of protest.
Any person whose protest has been denied, in whole or in part, may contest the denial by filing a civil action in the United States Court of International Trade in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 2632 within 180 days after—
(a) The date of mailing of notice of denial, in whole or in part, of a protest,
(b) The date a protest, for which accelerated disposition was requested, is deemed to have been denied in accordance with § 174.22(d), or
(c) The date that a protest is deemed denied in accordance with § 174.21(b), or § 151.16(g) of this chapter.”

Most significant, when actions under this option are taken timely, the entries covered by the protest are never “finally liquidated.”   Thus, the importers’ rights under these longstanding administrative and judicial procedures co-exist with their rights to seek refunds of IEEPA duties via the CAPE processing via the ACE functionality phases as they are implemented by CBP.

The key is to Monitor Your IEEPA Entry Liquidation Dates and Act Timely!

[1] See CBP Website on IEEPA at: International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) Duty Refunds | U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

[2] Id.

[3] Freestyle World, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, et al., Court No. 26-01088, Case 1:26-cv-01088-RKE, Document 38 Filed 08/25/26.

[4]  Learning Res., Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. 229 (2026).

[5] U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall reliquidate, without regard to IEEPA duties, any and all of Plaintiffs’ entries that have been liquidated for more than 80 days and on which Plaintiffs made estimated deposits pursuant to IEEPA. For the purposes of this order, reliquidation of entries that have been liquidated for more than 80 days is subject to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s submission to U.S. Customs and Border Protection of Plaintiffs’ importer of record identification number(s), in accordance with instructions to be provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection and conveyed to Plaintiffs’ counsel. Also, for the purposes of this order, reliquidation shall occur only following U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s acceptance of Plaintiffs’ CAPE declarations; ….

[6] It is believed that all or nearly all of the then pending 3,700 cases referenced in the July 15, 2026 CIT order were initiated under the CIT’s jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. 1581(i).

[7] See definitions of “drawback” and “drawback claim” at 19 C.F.R. § 190.2.

[8] See CBP’s initial guidance on the IEEPA Reciprocal tariffs in which it stated that drawback would be allowed in connection with such tariffs:  CSMS # 64649265 – GUIDANCE – Reciprocal Tariffs, April 5, 2025 Effective Date.

[9] See 19 C.F.R. §174.12(e).

[10] Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. U.S., CIT Court No. 26-01259, Document 49, filed 3/20/2026.

[11] See also: 19 U.S.C. § 1515 Review of protests

…

• Request for accelerated disposition of protest

A request for accelerated disposition of a protest filed in accordance with may be mailed by certified or registered mail to the appropriate customs officer any time concurrent with or following the filing of such protest. For purposes of, a protest which has not been allowed or denied in whole or in part within thirty days following the date of mailing by certified or registered mail of a request for accelerated disposition shall be deemed denied on the thirtieth day following mailing of such request. …

SCOTUS Declares President Trump’s IEEPA Tariffs Unconstitutional and Void – What Next? 

By: Sandra Lee Bell ·  Katherine E. McComic · February 23, 2026

LEARNING RESOURCES, INC. v. TRUMP, 670 U.S.___(2026) 

• 6-3 Decision as to Parts I, II-A-1, and II-B (Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barret, and Jackson).  

Summary of Decision 

On Friday February 20, 2026, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States held that: (1) because the Constitution vests the power to lay and collect taxes, including the power to impose tariffs, exclusively in Congress, the Executive Branch enjoys no inherent authority to impose peacetime tariffs; and therefore, any presidential power to impose peacetime tariffs must derive from a clear congressional delegation of Congress’s taxing power, and, thus (2) because the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”)—the statute under which President Trump had claimed authority over the past year to impose by Executive Orders duties on certain imports from all countries for various reasons ^[1]  (the “IEEPA Tariffs”)—lacks explicit language authorizing the President to impose tariffs, President Trump’s IEEPA Tariffs are unconstitutional, and therefore void.  

The Court held that the broader statutory text of IEEPA and congressional practice confirm that IEEPA lacks an implicit delegation to the President of Congress’s taxing power. When Congress delegates the authority to impose customs duties—a federal tax levied on imported goods—it consistently uses explicit terms like “duty” or “surcharge” and imposes strict procedural limits. IEEPA lists nine specific actions the President may take regarding foreign commerce, such as investigating or prohibiting transactions, but notably omits any mention of tariffs or revenue-raising measures.  

Furthermore, the Court reasoned that interpreting IEEPA to allow taxation would render it partly unconstitutional. If it were true that IEEPA’s use of the word “regulate” included the power to “tax”, then IEEPA would authorize the President to impose tariffs on both importation and exportation. The Constitution itself, however, expressly forbids taxing exports.  Therefore, the Court held that IEEPA’s use of the word “regulate” could not possibly have been meant to include “taxation”.  

To cite the Court’s conclusion:  

“The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it. 

IEEPA’s grant of authority to “regulate . . . importation” falls short. IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties. The Government points to no statute in which Congress used the word “regulate” to authorize taxation. And until now no President has read IEEPA to confer such power. 

We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.” 

Immediate  Impact and Possible Next Steps 

Implementation:  Immediately following the Supreme Court’s decision on February 20, 2026, the President signed an Executive Order, Ending Certain Tariff Actions – The White House, which formally announced the ending of the collection of IEEPA Tariffs, specifically stating that these tariffs “shall no longer be in effect and, as soon as practicable, shall no longer be collected.”  Two days later, on Sunday February 22, 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP) issued guidance to importers confirming how no IEEPA tariffs will be collected as of February 24, 2026, stating that all HTSUS subheadings covering EEPA tariffs will become inactive in the agency’s Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system for filing customs entries, as of February 24, 2026.  

Refunds: Neither the Supreme Court decision, the White House EO ending the tariffs collection, nor the follow up CBP guidance contains any discussion regarding refunds of IEEPA tariffs previously paid.  Moreover, there is no statement in either the February 20th EO or the February 22nd CBP Guidance of the legal basis for only starting February 24th, to not collect IEEPA tariffs, as opposed to on the same date of the Supreme Court’s decision on February 20, 2026 holding that the tariffs are not authorized under the statute used, IEEPA, i.e., the “Gap period”. 

New Alternative Tariffs:  Following the Supreme Court Decision, Presidential Proclamation, Imposing a Temporary Import Surcharge to Address Fundamental International Payments Problems – The White House,  announced a new 10% ad valorem duty to be assessed on all imports, unless the product is specifically listed as exempt under the Annexes to the Proclamation. The new tariff, “import surcharge” of 10% ad valorem duty, is assessed under section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2132) (“Section 122”) “Balance of Payments authority”, which allows Presidential Proclamations of temporary (not exceeding 150 days) import surcharges and quotas on imports “in situations of fundamental international payments problems.” Even though the February 20th Proclamation ordered assessment of a 10% ad valorem duty import surcharge, on February 21, 2026, the President has stated publicly that the Administration intends to increase these new tariffs to the full 15% amount allowed under the law.  So, just when IEEPA tariffs have become “no more”, there is a “across the board” new tariff in place, albeit temporarily under the stated law. 

Rimon Resource Center  

Rimon is closely monitoring the situation and will provide updates as soon as practical next steps following SCOTUS’s decision begin to solidify. 

It is likely that CBP will issue additional guidance in the coming weeks regarding the agency’s plan to efficiently address refunds en masse, rather than require tariff payers to file individual protest filings.  

If you have any questions regarding the impact of SCOTUS’s decision on your imported products, please do not hesitate to reach out to Rimon’s International Trade and Customs Law Practice Group.

“^[1] See complete list of Affected Executive Orders imposing IEEPA tariffs in CBP Guidance:  CSMS # 67834313 – Ending Collection of International Emergency Economic Powers Act Duties.”

*Please note that the United States tariff regulation and policy are rapidly evolving. The alerts posted on this site were true and accurate at the time of posting, but please check in with your attorney before acting on any information.

This summary is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create an attorney-client relationship with Rimon, P.C. or its affiliates.