Tariff Tactics

Following our previous update on Atmus Filtration and the early signs of a process coming into place for International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) refunds, this post discusses further developments last week, including the March 20, 2026 order in Atmus Filtration.  This amended order included the Court of International Trade (“CIT”)’s reminder to importers to “be aware of the [protest] remedies available under 19 U.S.C. § 1514.”  The order also confirms the ongoing stay of the prior March 4, 2026 order.  The stay means liquidation deadlines continue to run while refunds remain paused.  Given this, we continue to urge importers to consider the following steps:

• Filing suit in the CIT;
• Tracking liquidation and protest deadlines and submitting timely protests;
• Assessing third party claim risk; and
• Planning around replacement tariffs.

I. Introduction: Atmus Filtration and IEEPA Reassignments to Judge Eaton

On March 17, 2026, CIT Chief Judge Mark Barnett issued an order of reassignment, transferring IEEPA refund cases to Senior Judge Richard Eaton.  This reassignment order gave the CIT’s institutional confirmation of Judge Eaton’s prior statement in his March 4 Atmus Filtration Order: “I am the only judge who will hear cases pertaining to the refund of IEEPA duties.”  Judge Eaton’s later denial of Plaintiff’s March 18, 2026 motion for a Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee appears to confirm early indications that IEEPA process will not unfold through a committee as it has in other mass CIT litigation, e.g., In Re Section 301 Cases, Ct. No. 21-00052-3JP (CIT Mar. 31, 2021).  On March 19, 2026, Judge Eaton scheduled another closed status conference with the Atmus Filtration parties.

Since the March 17, 2026 order of reassignment, Judge Eaton has stayed all IEEPA refund cases, except Atmus Filtration.  This has made Atmus Filtration the de facto lead case, with the orders in this matter effectively determining refund procedures across the over two thousand cases filed before the CIT.

II. Judge Eaton’s March 20^th Order: Importers Must be Proactive

On March 20, 2026, Judge Eaton issued a new order in Atmus Filtration confirming that his March 4, 2026 order remains stayed.  This means that refunds continue to be paused while Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) upgrades its software to process IEEPA refunds, as we wrote about here.  Given the likely timeline for these upgrades, there is also a strong possibility that the government may appeal and further stay Judge Eaton’s orders before the upgrades are completed, for reasons also discussed here. 

Many importers interpreted the March 4 order as providing for automatic refunds without further action.  As we previously discussed, that view does not account for the ongoing stay, the possibility of appeal, or the differing treatment of entries based on liquidation status in relation to the dates of the Learning Resources decision and Atmus Filtration orders.  In fact, in his March 20 Order, Judge Eaton pointedly noted that importers must “be aware of the [protest] remedies available under 19 U.S.C. § 1514.”  Essentially, the March 20^th order confirms that importers should not view the prior Atmus Filtration orders as relieving parties of any obligations to pursue IEEPA refund claims; instead, the order shifts some rights preserving burdens back to importers.

III. What Importers Should Do to Secure IEEPA Refunds

Given the uncertainties described above, we continue to recommend that importers consider: (1) filing suit in the CIT; (2) tracking liquidation and protest deadlines and submitting timely protests; (3) assessing third party claims risk; and (4) planning around replacement tariffs.

1. Filing Suit

Unlike the administrative protest processes which proceed on an entry basis, lawsuits can be filed with generally plead claims, as in the FedEx suit that we wrote about here.  These claims can broadly describe liquidated or unliquidated entries.  Filing suit provides an additional layer of risk protection and stronger rights protections for importers.  We recommend importers consider this, especially given statements by the administration that it intends to fight the refund issue, summarized briefly here.

1. Tracking Liquidation and Protest Deadlines

Given the ongoing stay of Judge Eaton’s March 4 liquidation/reliquidation order and the possibility of a government appeal, importers should continue to track liquidation deadlines through the CBP’s Automated Commercial Environment (“ACE”) system.  Failure to protest may result in the finality of liquidation and the loss of refund claims.  Importers should also enroll in the CBP’s refunds program through the ACE Portal (see CSMS # 67513690) and should monitor developments concerning the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (“CAPE”) functionality that CBP is building within the ACE system.  CAPE will include a claims portal and facilitate refund processes that CBP has described in filings to Judge Eaton in the Atmus Filtration case. 

1. Reviewing Third Party Claim Exposure

As we have previously discussed, only Importers of Record are eligible to receive CBP refunds, not exporters, consumers or other customers.  However, importers may have entered into contractual obligations that obligate payments to third parties upon issuance of refunds.  Moreover, several consumer class action lawsuits have been filed recently targeting retailers and other businesses for consumer payouts upon receipt of IEEPA refunds.  It remains to be seen whether these claims will gain traction; the initial complaints appear to have weak points concerning causation and injury, especially regarding claims sounding in fraud.  It also remains to be seen whether a class will be certified given potential problems with assessing tariff components of price increases across consumers and other potentially distinguishing factors across claims.  Regardless, businesses should carefully consider third party claims risk, whether arising from contractual or tort claims.

1. Assessing Replacement Tariff Impacts

The potential replacement tariffs we previously described here are now being proposed and enacted in real time, as also discussed here.  New tariffs under § 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 remain in place, notwithstanding ongoing legal challenges.  In the meantime, the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) recently announced seventy-six new investigations under § 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.  These consist of sixteen investigations of Structural Excess Capacity and Production in Manufacturing Sectors and sixty investigations concerning Goods Produced with Forced Labor.  As we have previously discussed, these tariff investigations are likely harbingers of more Section 301 investigations to come, given public comments by the United States Trade Representative, Ambassador Jamieson Greer, concerning potential upcoming Section 301 tariffs.

Public comments in the current Section 301 investigations are due very soon, on April 15, 2026.  We strongly encourage importers to consider participating in the public comment and hearing processes as participation provides a direct line of communication with USTR that can beneficially impact product coverage, tariff rates, and potential exclusion frameworks before tariffs are finalized.  Moreover, importers must consider the impacts of these future tariffs in assessing IEEPA refund impacts and ongoing tariff compliance.

IV. Conclusion

Importers face both challenges and opportunities with respect to IEEPA tariff refunds and future tariff re-imposition.  HNRK’s attorneys continuing to advise clients on litigation and administrative strategies for securing refunds and protecting importer interests concerning new tariffs.  To discuss further, please contact Siddartha Rao (srao@hnrklaw.com). 

Tariff Tactics will continue to analyze and monitor issues of concern to importers as the IEEPA refund and tariff reimposition processes unfold.