Preserving Your Right to Potential IEEPA Tariff Refunds

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue a landmark ruling shortly in the case V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump and related cases regarding the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). During oral arguments, a majority of the Justices expressed skepticism regarding the Executive Branch’s authority to use IEEPA as a mechanism for broad-scale tariff imposition.

If the Court strikes down the IEEPA tariffs, billions of dollars in duties paid since early 2025 may be subject to a refund. If the Supreme Court issues a broad ruling striking down the tariffs, it could require that all previously paid IEEPA tariffs be refunded. However, it is also possible that the Court will issue a narrow ruling, effectively enabling refunds only for those importers who have taken the appropriate legal steps to preserve their rights to a refund.

In the recent case AGS Co. Automotive Solutions v. CBP, the Court of International Trade (CIT) issued a ruling that suggests what steps importers can now take pending the Supreme Court’s decision. In this case, the CIT denied the importers request for a preliminary injunction against liquidation of entries on which they paid IEEPA duties. The CIT found that the collection and assessment of IEEPA duties are not decisions that are subject to protest, but instead are nonprotestable actions taken pursuant to executive orders. According to the CIT, the only method importers can take to preserve refund rights is to file a timely case in the CIT. The court stated that it would have the power to order the reliquidation of entries with refunds of the IEEPA duties if the Supreme Court overturns the tariffs. The CIT also noted that the administration has “made very clear — both in this case and in related cases — that [it] will not object to the [c]ourt ordering reliquidation of plaintiffs’ entries subject to the challenged IEEPA duties if such duties are found to be unlawful.”

On December 23, 2025, the CIT issued an administrative order staying nearly 1,000 similar cases and any future such cases pending in the court as it “expects to determine the appropriate next steps for resolution of the new IEEPA tariff cases following a final, unappealable decision” by the Supreme Court.

What You Can Do

There are several steps that you can take to maximize your rights to a refund, depending primarily on the liquidation status of your customs entries:

1. For Unliquidated (Open) Entries (Entries typically liquidate 314 days after the date of entry):
   • You can file a Post-Summary Correction (PSC) with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) challenging the tariffs.
   • You may also request that CBP extend the liquidation period under 19 CFR § 159.12. While CBP often denies extensions based on “pending litigation,” an official request would create a record of your intent.
2. For Liquidated (Closed) Entries:
   • Administrative Protests: You can file a protest under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 within 180 days of the liquidation date. At the time that you file, you should ask that the protest be suspended or stayed pending the Supreme Court’s final decision.
   • Protective Litigation: Because recent rulings from the Court of International Trade (CIT) suggest that traditional protests may be insufficient on their own for IEEPA-specific challenges, you should also consider filing the protest while also filing a “protective action” in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) under 28 U.S.C. §1581(i).

As noted above, the CIT has already stayed hundreds of cases challenging the tariffs pending the Supreme Court’s decision. Filing a summons now preserves your claims and ensures that even if CBP continues to liquidate entries, your right to a court-ordered reliquidation (and refund with interest) also remains preserved.

Looking Ahead

Should the Supreme Court invalidate the tariffs, the Trump administration may attempt to re-impose them using different authorities, such as Section 301 (Trade Act of 1974) or Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act of 1962). The administration issued Section 301 tariffs targeting Chinese products. The administration also issued Section 232 relating to steel, aluminum, copper and many products derived from these metals. The plaintiffs in the IEEPA litigation did not challenge the Section 232 or 301 tariffs, and the Supreme Court decision will not affect their validity.

Please let us know if you have any questions concerning the tariffs or the steps that we have outlined above.