CIT Orders CBP to Refund IEEPA Tariffs Following Supreme Court Strike-Down

The U.S. trade landscape has entered a period of significant administrative upheaval following the Court of International Trade’s (CIT) March 4, 2026, order. By directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to automatically refund duties collected under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the court has handed a substantial victory to the importing community. This development follows a pivotal U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down President Donald Trump’s use of IEEPA for broad-based tariff imposition, concluding that the executive branch exceeded its statutory authority. For Legal and RegTech professionals, the ruling necessitates an immediate audit of trade data to identify eligible entries and monitor the shifting status of liquidation cycles.

The CIT order is particularly notable for its breadth. Unlike many trade remedies that apply only to the specific plaintiffs in a case, this mandate applies to all importers of record who paid IEEPA duties. The court has instructed CBP to liquidate all unliquidated entries without the application of IEEPA duties and to reliquidate entries where liquidation is 'not final.' In the context of U.S. customs law, an entry typically liquidates 314 days after the date of entry, but it does not become 'final' until the 180-day protest window under 19 USC 1514 has closed. This distinction creates a complex compliance matrix for importers: entries that have passed the 180-day mark may be excluded from the automatic refund process, potentially requiring separate litigation to recover funds.

“

Following the Supreme Court’s rebuke, President Trump issued a proclamation levying a 10% across-the-board tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which deals with balance-of-payments authority.

From a RegTech perspective, the challenge lies in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Secure Data Portal. Importers must now reconcile their internal records with CBP’s liquidation status to ensure that the 'automatic' refunds are actually processed. History suggests that 'automatic' in a regulatory context rarely means 'instantaneous.' The Department of Justice (DOJ) is widely expected to file a motion for a stay pending appeal, which could freeze the refund process for months or even years. Consequently, trade counsel is advising companies to continue filing protests on any entries that liquidate during this interim period to preserve their rights, rather than relying solely on the CIT’s current order.