CIT Orders CBP to Remove IEEPA Tariffs from Unliquidated Entries – Pressure Builds on CBP to Roll Out a Refund Procedure.

On March 4, 2026, U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) Judge Richard K. Eaton issued an order in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, 26-01259, first directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate all future entries that remain unliquidated without applying IEEPA tariff duties and, second requiring CBP to reliquidate all entries that have been liquidated but are not yet final.

Moreover, in the order, Judge Eaton affirmed that CIT has nationwide jurisdiction granted by Congress, which the Supreme Court has also recognized as permitting the court to issue nationwide orders. Judge Eaton further clarified that the Chief Judge appointed him as the sole judge to hear cases pertaining to refunds of IEEPA duties.

What to Expect

Importers who paid IEEPA tariffs will still likely face a long road before seeing those tariffs refunded. Judge Eaton’s order in Atmus Filtration, Inc. applies only to formal entries that remain unliquidated (not finalized) and to both formal and informal entries that have been liquidated but that CBP is still permitted to reliquidate voluntarily. The order does not broadly apply to formal or informal entries that CBP can no longer reliquidate.

It is anticipated that the administration will appeal Judge Eaton’s order. But in the meantime, Judge Eaton has scheduled a closed conference for March 6, 2026. The purpose of the conference is for the government to provide an update on how CBP is likely to anticipate responding to his order to refund those covered IEEPA tariffs without requiring claimants to file complaints with CIT.

Unliquidated Entries

Formal entries that CBP is still processing remain in an unliquidated status. CBP considers an entry “unliquidated” because it has not yet finalized the assessment of duties, taxes, and fees, meaning the transaction remains open for review—and possibly amended by the importer of record. This unliquidated status represents an interim, estimated status in which CBP has not yet issued a final liquidation order that fixes the importer’s duty liability.

Once CBP determines that an entry is accurate, it finalizes—or liquidates—the entry.

While an entry remains unliquidated, importers or their licensed customs brokers may amend their entries within 300 days of entry through Post Summary Correction (PSC), but no later than 15 days before liquidation. CBP generally attempts to liquidate entries within 314 days after an entry is properly filed, but it may extend this period by up to four years, or it could be liquidated sooner.[1]

However, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources, importers and their licensed customs brokers were unable to amend their entries to remove the unlawful IEEPA tariffs. There was no clear direction with respect to how amendments or refunds would be handled. Importers and their licensed customs brokers were therefore uncertain about how to amend their entries or how to claim refunds for unliquidated entries. The government may revise that policy at the conference scheduled for March 6, 2026.

While the Atmus Filtration, Inc. order generally suggests—and CBP procedures imply—that CBP should amend entries to remove the IEEPA tariffs, it is still unclear exactly how the government will implement this. It also remains to be seen whether importers or their licensed customs brokers will need to update the entries manually or through other means.

Reliquidation of Liquidated Entries

CBP has authority on its own initiative to voluntarily reliquidate or correct an entry within 90 days of liquidation, whether or not a protest has been filed.[2]

Requirements for a Protest

Since the order may be appealed and the nature of CBP’s presentation at the March 6, 2026 hearing is uncertain, it is not clear whether an entry liquidated with IEEPA tariffs assessed after this order can be protested.

Under the regulations, a protest may be filed for (a) clerical errors, or (b) administrative decisions, including the rate and amount of duties.[3] A protest must be received by CBP within 180 days of CBP’s action—in this case, the liquidation of entries that include IEEPA tariffs after the order was issued.

Liquidated Entries Before the Atmus Filtration, Inc., Order

Entries that were liquidated before Judge Eaton’s order in Atmus Filtration, Inc., and are now final—and therefore cannot be voluntarily reliquidated by CBP—remain in limbo, pending future court, congressional, or administrative guidance.

Next Steps for Claimants

The missing link for importers is that CBP needs to roll out a tariff refund procedure. In the meantime, claimants should be prepared to amend entries and file protests where appropriate.

Nevertheless, it may take some time before claimants or importers see refunds for unliquidated entries or entries subject to CBP voluntary reliquidation. However, there are several actionable steps importers can take while waiting.

First, importers should begin collecting relevant data—starting with entry summaries—and identifying which entries may be subject to this order. These records may be found through the importer’s or licensed customs broker’s ABI/ACE systems or through data published by CBP, which is accessible on CBP’s website.

Next, importers should consult legal counsel to determine whether they may be obligated to remit refunds to third parties or whether they might be required to amend entries or file protests on behalf of third parties in response to the Atmus Filtration, Inc., order. For example, importers who increased prices to account for IEEPA tariffs may face customers demanding a credit or rebate. Counsel can assist with reviewing documentation, coordinating cost-sharing agreements with third parties, and reviewing or drafting assignment agreements. Once CBP issues guidance, claimants and importers will need to closely monitor refunds. Given the volume of entries involved, it is likely that CBP will inadvertently liquidate some entries with IEEPA tariffs still included. In those cases, claimants and importers may need to quickly file a protest or appeal to CIT.

Finally, many claimants are continuing to file cases with the CIT in order to take proactive steps, which is something claimants should review with legal counsel. Nevertheless, even those taking a wait-and-see approach should consider engaging legal counsel to review their situation and begin negotiations with potential third parties regarding cost-sharing arrangements.

[1] See 19 C.F.R. § 159.12(f).

[2] See 19 C.F.R. §§ 173.2, 173.3, and 19 U.S.C. § 1501.

[3] See 19 C.F.R. § 174.11

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.