February 25, 2026|Client Alerts
By Akana K. J. Ma, John C. Ramig, Seth Trimble, Sonja Arndt-Johnson and Marshall L. Olney
The Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump presents a time-sensitive opportunity for businesses to seek refunds of IEEPA tariffs on unliquidated entries. Most goods imported by businesses are not liquidated immediately and, if certain conditions are met, a business may have an entry amended to remove the IEEPA tariff assessment. During the pre-liquidation period, importers or their licensed U.S. customs brokers may amend an entry summary by filing a Post-Summary Correction (PSC) through the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) within the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) platform. Under current rules, this process is not available for liquidated entries. Therefore, it is important that an importer of record (IOR) promptly check which of its entries remain unliquidated and amend such entries before liquidation, as this is the most expeditious path for IORs to advance a claim for refunds while definitive government policy in response to the ruling is being determined.
A Key Strategy: Focus on Unliquidated Entries.
For those not familiar with the entry process, liquidation is the process by which U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) makes a final computation of duties (including IEEPA tariffs) and finalizes its interest in the entry. CBP generally has one year to liquidate an entry, or the entry is liquidated by operation of law. CBP may extend liquidation for up to three additional one-year periods, for a total of four years. However, liquidations typically occur much sooner than these statutory periods; in practice CBP typically liquidates routine formal entries approximately eight to eleven months after the date of entry. Therefore, it is important to for the IOR to check what entries remain unliquidated and not sit on their opportunity correct an entry before liquidation.
Removing IEEPA Tariffs Through Post-Summary Corrections
During the pre-liquidation period, CBP may adjust the duties owed, including removing IEEPA tariffs. Likewise, during this period, the IOR or its licensed U.S. customs broker may make adjustments to the entry. Under CBP regulations, unliquidated entries must be corrected within 300 days of the date of entry (unless CBP grants an extension) but no later than 15 days before the scheduled liquidation. Moreover, to make such a correction, the entry summary must be in accepted status, fully paid, unliquidated, and not under CBP review or control. The “date of entry” is generally the date CBP releases goods into U.S. commerce – not necessarily the date the goods arrived in the United States or when the entry summary was filed.
Filing a Post-Summary Correction
In preparation for filing a PSC in ACE to recalculate duties owed, the filer should conduct a complete review of the entry package, including the original CBP Form 7501 data, commercial invoice, packing list, bill of lading, classification analysis, valuation support, origin documentation, and any applicable tariff program or special duty calculations (e.g., IEEPA, Sections 232 or 301). The filer should confirm that the entry remains unliquidated, verify the release date to ensure the PSC is within the allowable filing window, and calculate the corrected duty amounts and any resulting bill or refund prior to submission. If a refund is sought for duties paid for tariffs imposed under IEEPA, they should be prominently identified and distinguished from duties paid pursuant to other tariffs that are still in force, such as Sections 232 or 301 tariffs.
Possible Recovery for Liquidated Entries.
Entries Liquidated Prior to Learning Resources.
The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) has indicated that CBP protest procedures under 19 C.F.R. part 174 are likely not a valid refund mechanism for liquidated entries made before the Supreme Court found IEEPA tariffs to be unlawful. CIT reasoned when IEEPA tariffs were liquidated before the Court invalidated them, CBP did not make a clerical error or administrative decision. However, CIT did state, and the government agreed, that CIT did have authority to issue IEEPA tariff refunds upon the Court’s determination that such tariffs were unlawful.
Entries Liquidated Post Learning Resources.
A protest may be available for liquidated entries after the Supreme Court deemed such IEEPA tariffs unlawful since such liquidations could constitute a clerical or administrative error. For example, if CBP liquidates an entry that overstates the tariffs due by including IEEPA tariffs when such tariffs are unlawful, it may constitute a clerical error or faulty administrative decision. This is different than the refund CIT contemplated for liquidated entries prior to the Court’s decision in Learning Resources, since the lawfulness of IEEPA tariffs had not yet been determined. As stated in the Code, a CBP administrative protest may be made if it involves (a) clerical errors, mistakes of fact, or other inadvertence, or (b) administrative decisions. Administrative decisions subject to protest include the “rate and amount of duties chargeable” and the “liquidation or reliquidation of an entry, or any modification thereof,” likely this could include IEEPA tariffs after such tariffs were deemed unlawful.
A protest must be filed in writing by the importer of record, consignee, surety, any person paying a charge or exaction, any person seeking entry or delivery, or their duly authorized agent, and must clearly identify the protesting party and the decision being protested. The protest claimant, or the protest claimant’s licensed customs broker or attorney, has 180 days from liquidation to file the protest, either at the port of entry or electronically.
A CBP protest must clearly explain which CBP decision is being challenged and present specific information. The protest claimant’s attorney can assist in identifying necessary documents and providing the necessary legal argument and drafting the protest. In addition, the protest claimant may designate that any approved refund be paid to another party, such as a broker or surety, by including written authorization clearly identifying that party to receive the refund on its behalf – particularly important if the protest claimant is not set up to accept electronic ACH refunds.
An IOR may consider a “Application for Further Review” under 19 C.F.R. § 174.25. An Application for Further Review is beneficial because it ensures the case is evaluated to a higher-level of legal experts at CBP Headquarters rather than the same local office that made the original decision, providing a more objective and sophisticated analysis of complex legal issues. However, such Application for Further Review may mean a claim takes longer.
The Role of Counsel in Preserving Refund Rights.
At this early stage, legal counsel can play a critical role in advising both the importer of record and the licensed customs broker. Counsel can assess whether entries remain unliquidated and therefore eligible for a timely PSC, analyze the legal basis for removing IEEPA tariffs, and ensure compliance with statutory and regulatory correction obligations. Where liquidation has already occurred, counsel can evaluate whether a protest is procedurally viable, frame the protest to properly challenge the rate and amount of duties assessed, and preserve the client’s right to judicial review before the CIT if necessary. Client may also consider filing a complaint before the CIT while simultaneously exploring and pursuing the above course of action via CBP. By filing a complaint early, clients are well-positioned if the Trump Administration fights paying refunds, potentially forcing importers to file lawsuits. Early involvement allows counsel to coordinate documentation, minimize procedural defects, and position the importer or broker for the most efficient recovery strategy.
This communication is not intended to create or constitute, nor does it create or constitute, an attorney-client or any other legal relationship. No statement in this communication constitutes legal advice nor should any communication herein be construed, relied upon, or interpreted as legal advice. This communication is for general information purposes only regarding recent legal developments of interest, and is not a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included herein without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances affecting that reader. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
