Tariff Tactics

Atmus Filtration: What a Liquidation-Based IEEPA Refund Process Means for Importers

I. Introduction: Judge Eaton Orders the Administration to Refund Importers

A recent order (dated March 4, 2026) from the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) could be welcome news for importers entitled to International Economic Emergency Powers Act (“IEEPA”) tariff refunds.  Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, No. 26-01259, Order at 1–3 (Ct. Int’l Trade Mar. 4, 2026).  As the first decision outlining a refund roadmap, the order establishes a process that could wind down by January 2027.  However, since issuance of the order, the government has filed papers (on March 6, 2026) stating that it cannot comply with the order until late April at the earliest.  This post analyzes Judge Eaton’s order and its implications for importers, including compliance issues, whether the order is likely to be appealed and how this may affect importer refund strategies.

II. Atmus Filtration and a Potentially Coordinated Refund Process

Last week (on March 4, 2026), CIT Judge Eaton issued a short, three-page order in a related case that provides the first roadmap for refunds.  Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, No. 26-01259, Order at 1–3 (Ct. Int’l Trade Mar. 4, 2026).  In brief, Judge Eaton ordered CBP to exclude IEEPA tariffs when liquidating entries.  Judge Eaton also ordered the CBP to reliquidate non-final entries.  Because entries do not become final until the 180-day protest period expires, Judge Eaton’s order effectively reaches recently liquidated entries that remain protestable. 

This would mean that CBP would refund paid IEEPA duties through the liquidation or reliquidation process, without importers needing to take further action. In practice, this would tie the refund timeline to the existing liquidation calendar, meaning refunds would occur gradually as entries liquidate rather than through a single centralized payout.  Liquidation typically occurs 314 days after tariff entry, so the order effectively creates a refund process and timeline for importers as to any unliquidated entries, the last of which should liquidate in January of 2027. 

This order would vastly simplify what was previously an unknown and potentially complex process by channeling refund relief through the existing customs liquidation framework.  To understand the significance of this development, we briefly summarize the background below.  However, in filings submitted to the CIT last Friday, the government submitted that it is unable to comply with Judge Eaton’s Order and that it needs forty-five (45) days to develop a system capable of processing the unprecedented number of refund claims.  During a March 6, 2026 conference call, Judge Eaton temporarily stayed the implementation of his order, and instead required the government to submit a refund implementation plan by March 12.

III. Background: A Ruling Without Remedies

On Friday February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Learning Resources v. Trump, that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.  That decision resolved a legal issue but left many open questions on remedies: importers had no clear path to refunds.  Following the decision, President Trump issued an executive order on February 20, 2026 terminating all previously imposed IEEPA-based tariffs.  On February 22, 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) issued Cargo Systems Messaging Service (“CSMS”) message # 67834313, “Ending Collection of International Emergency Economic Powers Act Duties,” advising that CBP “will no longer be collected for goods entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:00 a.m. eastern time on February 24, 2026.” 

Neither the President’s February 20, 2026 order or the February 22, 2026 CSMS message addressed prior paid IEEPA tariffs.  Several comments from White House officials implied a long road ahead.  For example, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated in a Fox News interview that it “could take years to litigate and get to a payout.”  Similarly, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer stated that the administration “need[s] the court to tell us what to do.”  Essentially, the Administration put the proverbial ball back in the CIT’s court to determine next steps.  Days after the February 20, 2026 decision, companies like FedEx filed suit, asking the CIT to order CBP to recompute tariff liabilities and issue refunds and adding to the over 2,000 litigants with claims before the CIT.

On March 2, 2026, the Federal Circuit dissolved the stay that had held its mandate to remand in check, ordering the remand mandate to “issue forthwith.”  V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, Nos. 2025-1812, -1813 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 2, 2026) (en banc per curiam).  In so doing, the Federal Circuit denied the Justice Department’s motion to stay issuance of the mandate, which the government argued could allow Congress to pursue a legislative solution for refunds.  The decision returned the case to the CIT and set the stage for Judge Eaton’s order in Atmus Filtration.

IIII. Is Judge Eaton’s Decision the Final Word on Refunds?

As a threshold matter, Judge Eaton’s Order does not resolve any issues for entries that have reached final liquidation.  Moreover, it appears likely the government will appeal the decision, especially given the Administration’s early statements that anticipates it will “take years to litigate and get to a payout,” and statements—including during oral argument in Atmus Filtration—that all importers should be required to file individual CIT actions to obtain refunds for any entries that have liquidated.

The government may also have a viable legal argument: the Atmus Filtration Order appears to grant relief universally, i.e. to similarly situated parties not before the Court, and may run afoul of the Supreme Court’s decision last year in Trump v. CASA, Inc. 606 U.S. 831, 865 (2025) (holding that Federal Court jurisdiction generally does not encompass the power to issue universal injunctions).  Notably, the Court of Appeals Federal Circuit had vacated the CIT’s order in V.O.S. Selections  on the same grounds.

Judge Eaton’s Atmus Filtration order attempts to distinguish this issue, because the jurisdiction at issue here arises from the Customs Courts Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-417, while that in Trump v. CASA, Inc. arises from the Judiciary Act of 1789.  Judge Eaton reasoned that because the Customs Court Act of 1980 gives the CIT national geographic jurisdiction and exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over import-related claims, his order does not enjoin parties in any other forum, distinguishing it from the universal injunction at issue in Trump v. CASA, Inc. 28 U.S.C. § 1581.

It is not yet certain whether the Federal Circuit will adopt Judge Eaton’s reasoning, and there is reason to believe the Administration will vigorously litigate this issue.  Ultimately, this may mean a return to the Supreme Court on this remedies question.  It also remains to be seen whether the appellate Courts will grant a stay of Judge Eaton’s order pending any final determination.  Given this uncertainty, importers cannot assume that Judge Eaton’s order is the final word.  However, if upheld on appeal, Judge Eaton’s approach could become the template for resolving refund claims across the over two-thousand related IEEPA cases currently pending before the CIT.

V. How Judge Eaton’s Decision Impacts Importers Pursuing Refunds

As a threshold matter, the Atmus Filtration order applies only to entries that have not finally liquidated.  Importers with liquidated entries may need to consider whether those entries have finally liquidated to assess a litigation strategy for refunds.  As to entries that have not finally liquidated, Judge Eaton’s order requires CBP to liquidate or reliquidate without IEEPA tariffs, resulting in a refund.  While this is the effect of Judge Eaton’s order, it is not clear whether the CBP can in fact comply with this directive as to millions of affected entries in two ways: (1) first, the process is administratively complex; (2) second, the refund schedule may give rise to a Treasury problem.  Without further procedural guidance, importers must wait to see how CBP implements Judge Eaton’s order.  Ultimately, the refund process being discussed here does not account for downstream impacts on consumers or other purchasers who may have paid higher prices due to tariffs, nor does it resolve contractual issues for importers who entered into refund triggered contractual obligations.

VI. Conclusion

Importers should continue to review ACE documentation and assess IEEPA refunds with respect to liquidation deadlines, administrative remedies, and CIT action.  Importers should also consider enrolling in the CBP’s refunds program through the ACE Portal.  See, CSMS # 67513690.  Tariff Tactics will continue to track these issues as they evolve and to provide actionable guidance to importers.  While we continue to monitor developments in Atmus Filtration, future posts will address tariff re-imposition and claim market issues, in addition to refund mechanics.