The Court of International Trade (CIT) is currently facing over 2,000 pending cases demanding refunds of the IEEPA tariffs. The Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources v. Trump is final, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit refused to allow any more delays when it ordered the case remanded. The IEEPA tariffs must be refunded. The open questions for importers are how and when.
The CIT would be overwhelmed if it required every importer to file their own lawsuit for IEEPA refunds. To ensure consistency, fairness, and administrative efficiency, we urge the U.S. Government, specifically the CIT and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), to adopt an automated refund mechanism like the process previously used to administer retroactive refunds under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP).
Under the GSP reinstatement framework, CBP implemented a system-wide, automated approach to refund eligible duties without requiring protests. That approach minimized administrative burden, reduced costs for the government and the trade community, and ensured timely reimbursements. A comparable model could and should be used for IEEPA refunds. CBP recently began requiring all importers to set up ACH accounts to receive refunds, which eliminates the need for print and mail checks.
CBP’s refund process does not need to be a bureaucratic maze. Import entries generally fall into two categories. The first includes the straightforward, in which IEEPA duties were clearly assessed. The second includes entries subject to post-entry adjustments that need to be considered in the refund calculation. The first category IEEPA tariffs can be refunded immediately. The second category can and should be promptly processed. AAEI also believes it is the responsibility of CBP to update ACE and all associated records to ensure the system of record accurately reflects the status of duties, including correctly reflecting HTS information after refunds are issued.
AAEI believes that requiring protests, post-summary corrections, or litigation to secure refunds will create unnecessary congestion within CBP’s administrative processes and impose avoidable costs of recovery on importers—particularly small and mid-sized businesses. An automated refund process would:
- Prevent thousands more lawsuits from being filed;
- Promote uniform and equitable treatment across the importing community;
- Reduce strain on CBP port personnel and protest divisions;
- Expedite the return of funds improperly collected; and
- Provide regulatory certainty and stability to U.S. businesses.
In line with the decision of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the CIT, we believe that an automated refund process would reflect sound administrative practice and reinforce CBP’s commitment to transparency, predictability, and trade facilitation.
We respectfully request that, as soon as possible, CBP issue public guidance outlining the mechanism and timeline for implementing automated refunds.