By Timothy Mills
Of Counsel, Aliant LLP (Los Angeles)
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Feb. 26, 2025) — The Supreme Court’s decision striking down President Trump’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)-based tariffs has triggered a wave of uncertainty, litigation, and behind-the-scenes maneuvering. As one passage in the source document notes, “officials across the Trump administration are scrambling to devise legal strategies that would allow the government to keep billions of dollars in tariff revenue the Supreme Court said was illegally collected.”
Importers who have paid the IEEPA-based tariffs now face a complex landscape: a White House reluctant to return the money, a Court of International Trade (CIT) preparing to manage more than 1,000 refund-related cases, and a statutory framework that gives these parties only a limited window to protect their rights.
This article organizes the key developments and provides a practical roadmap for what companies must do—and when—to ultimately secure refunds of IEEPA-based tariffs.
I. THE POLITICAL AND LEGAL BACKDROP: A UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RELUCTANT TO REFUND
The Supreme Court’s 6–3 ruling reined in President Trump’s tariff authority and held that the IEEPA-based duties were unlawful.
But the decision left a critical question unanswered: how refunds should be handled.
A. Administration Strategies to Slow or Limit Refunds
Reports have emerged from inside the Trump Administration today that the Administration is looking for ways for the U.S. Treasury to keep significant amounts of the illegally-collected tariff revenues, including:
• Using available White House “pressure tools” to discourage companies from filing refund claims;
• Creating new mechanisms, arguably based on existing legal authorities, to prevent the Federal Government from refunding the IEEPA-based tariffs;
• Offering expedited refunds only if companies agree to forfeit some of the money, thus allowing such companies to “jump to queue” and receive refunds first, with consequent refund delays for other companies standing in line; and
• Asserting that the IEEPA-based tariffs are unprecedentedly legal and now retroactive under a revamped set of duties under different legal authorities.
These strategies reflect a broader fiscal concern. The administration collected more than $133 billion in duties under the IEEPA tariffs, and refunding them would create a significant budgetary shock. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said that tariff refunds are “the ultimate corporate welfare.”
B. Interested Parties
The importer of record is the legal claimant and the party with standing to pursue IEEPA-tariff refunds in the CIT.
But the economic stakeholders are far broader. Many companies—buyers, distributors, retailers, manufacturers, and joint-venture partners—have reimbursed importers for tariff costs and therefore have contractual rights to repayment once refunds are issued.
The refund process is therefore not merely a customs matter but a multi-party financial event with implications across entire supply chains.
1. Primary Interested Party: The Importer of Record
The importer of record is the central claimant in any IEEPA-tariff refund. Importers would generally be entitled to refunds processed by Customs” for the unlawful IEEPA-related tariffs
The importer is the entity legally responsible for entry filings, duty payments, and any subsequent claims for reliquidation or refund.
Because the CIT has confirmed that liquidation does not bar recovery and that refund suits proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), the importer is the party with standing to file the necessary litigation.
Thus, importers also face the practical burdens of the refund process.
2. Contractual Payers of Tariffs: Downstream Parties Who Reimbursed the Importer
Many importers do not ultimately bear the economic cost of tariffs. Instead, they pass the duties through to other parties under contractual arrangements. These parties—though not the importer of record—have a significant financial interest in the refund outcome.
Common examples include:
• Buyers or customers who reimbursed the importer for tariff costs under supply agreements;
• Distributors or wholesalers who paid duty-inclusive prices that explicitly itemized tariff amounts;
• Manufacturers or brand owners who contractually agreed to absorb tariff costs for imported components;
• Joint-venture partners who shared landed-cost burdens, including duties; and
• Large retailers that require suppliers to invoice tariffs separately and then reimburse
them.
Although these parties cannot file a refund claim directly with Customs or the CIT, they often have contractual rights to repayment once the importer receives a refund. Their interests are therefore aligned with the importer’s pursuit of litigation and timely recovery.
C. The United States Court of International Trade (CIT) Litigation Landscape
The United States Court of International Trade (CIT) is now the central litigation forum.
More than 1,000 cases have already been filed, and major companies—FedEx among them— have begun seeking “full refunds” of the duties they paid.
The Trump Administration retains procedural tools to slow the CIT litigation process:
• Customs can finalize duties within 10 months of entry, after which refunds become more burdensome;
• The Justice Department can litigate “shipment by shipment” or appeal adverse rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; and
• Agencies can decline to extend deadlines that would make refunds easier.
No one expects either a quick answer to the refunds or the Federal Government to make it easy.
II. WHY IMPORTERS DO NOT NEED TO FILE CBP PROTESTS TO PRESERVE IEEPA REFUND RIGHTS
A central question for importers is whether they must file customs protests with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 and 19 C.F.R. Part 174 to preserve their refund rights. The answer—confirmed repeatedly by the CIT—is no.
A. CIT jurisdiction under § 1581 (i)
IEEPA tariff refund suits fall under the CIT’s residual jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i). These
claims challenge:
• the President’s statutory authority;
• CBP’s collection of duties “not authorized by law”; and
• unlawful exaction of funds.
They are not challenges to CBP’s administrative decisions (classification, valuation, liquidation, etc.), which would require a protest.
In December 2025, CIT ruled that the Court:
• Has the power to order reliquidation and refunds; and
• Will “retain jurisdiction for the two-year statute of limitations” applicable to § 1581(i)
B. Liquidation does not bar refunds
Also in December 2025, CIT held that liquidation (CBP’s final, official determination of the duties, taxes, and fees owed on imported goods) does not prevent importers from obtaining refunds of IEEPA tariffs. The government even agreed not to oppose reliquidation.
This eliminates the need to file protests to stop liquidation.
C. Importers are already filing CIT suits without protests
Importers have been filing “protective” CIT actions without filing protests, because protests are irrelevant to IEEPA-based claims.
D. When a protest would be required
A protest is required only when the importer challenges a CBP administrative decision—for example:
• Classification;
• Valuation;
• Origin determinations; and
• Denial of preference programs.
IEEPA refund claims do not fall into these categories.
III. WHAT IMPORTERS MUST DO NO TO SECURE IEEPA REFUNDS
Bringing the three parts together, the practical roadmap for IEEPA refunds looks like this:
A. File a CIT Action Under § 1581(i)
This is the only required step to preserve refund rights. Importers have two years from the date of the unlawful exaction to file suit.
B. Do Not File a Protest for IEEPA Refunds
Protests are irrelevant to IEEPA claims and will not preserve rights.
C. Consider Filing “Protective” CIT Lawsuits
Given the administration’s stated intent to slow refunds, protective filings ensure:
• Jurisdiction is preserved;
• The importer is in the queue; and
• The Federal Government cannot later argue waiver or untimeliness.
D. Maintain Entry-Level Documentation
Even though protests are unnecessary, importers should maintain:
• Entry summaries;
• Duty payment records;
• Liquidation notices; and
• Internal calculations of IEEPA duties paid.
This documentation ese will be required for refund calculations.
Customarily, this documentation is generated and maintained by customer brokers that have been engaged by the importer.
E. Monitor CIT Developments Closely
CIT will likely issue:
• Scheduling orders;
• Guidance on grouping cases;
• Instructions for calculating refunds; and
• Rulings on government attempts to delay or limit payments.
Given the Trump Administration’s current posture, importers should expect aggressive litigation.
IV. CONCLUSION
The path to recovering IEEPA-based tariffs is clear in law but fraught in practice.
The Supreme Court has spoken, but the Trump Administration is openly exploring ways to “keep some — or maybe even most — of the revenue.”
Companies should expect a multi-year fight.
The most crucial step is timely filing of a CIT action under § 1581(i).
Everything else—protests, liquidation status, administrative maneuvering—is secondary.
Importers who act promptly will be positioned to recover the duties they paid; those who wait may find themselves at the back of an exceptionally long line.
About the author:
Mr. Mills is Of Counsel to Aliant LLP in Los Angeles, with over 30 years’ experience in complex litigation and in providing advice and counsel to international clients on crossborder issues, including serving as counsel in trade litigation before the Court of International Trade during the first Trump Administration challenging the legality of tariffs imposed on imports from China, and providing advice and counsel to clients on the IEEPA based tariff litigation decided by the CIT, the Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Mills is admitted to the bars of these courts. Read more about Mr. Mills here.