Recent Lawsuits Underscore the Need for Companies to Act Now to Safeguard Potential Tariff Refunds

Note: In a December 15, 2025 decision rejecting a request for a preliminary injunction, the CIT held that liquidation of entries subject to IEEPA tariffs does not, on its own, preclude CIT from ordering reliquidation and issuing refunds if the tariffs are ultimately found unlawful by the Supreme Court. In reaching its decision, the CIT relied on the government’s representations in its filing (and in other similar lawsuits) that it will not oppose court-ordered reliquidation and refunds, and noted that the government would be judicially estopped from later taking a contrary position. In the days after the CIT ruling, dozens of new lawsuits were filed seeking refunds, reflecting that the liquidation deadline was just one of several considerations that informed the calculus of whether and when to file such litigation protectively.

A growing list of lawsuits filed in the Court of International Trade (CIT) reflects the increasing urgency facing importers that have paid duties on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)-based Trafficking Tariffs and Worldwide Retaliatory Tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration in early 2025.

Although the legality of these tariffs is pending decision before the Supreme Court,[1] companies are acting quickly to secure refunds in the event that the challenged tariff regime is struck down. Once a final determination is made on the duties owed on an import, the ability to obtain a refund becomes more difficult, and it remains uncertain whether any refund process will be implemented following a favorable decision by the Supreme Court, let alone one broad enough to cover all affected importers. Against this backdrop, understanding what steps are necessary to preserve refund rights is critical for companies evaluating their exposure and determining whether immediate action is warranted.

Procedural Context: Customs and Trade Law at a Glance

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is responsible for assessing and collecting duties imposed on imported goods when they enter the United States. Absent an extension or suspension, CBP is statutorily required to liquidate, or make its final determination of the duties owed on an import, within one year. In practice, CBP typically liquidates entities around 314 days after the date of entry of the goods. As a result, for goods imported in early February 2025—the month the first IEEPA-based tariffs took effect—liquidation is already underway.

Once CBP liquidates an entry, the duty determination becomes “final and conclusive,” and importers may lose the ability to obtain refunds, potentially even if the underlying tariffs are later ruled unlawful. Some administrative remedies exist, including the ability to file a protest with CBP within 180 days of that liquidation. If CBP denies the protest, the importer has the option to appeal that decision to the CIT. However, CBP decisions are protestable only when the agency exercises some decision-making authority. There is some uncertainty as to whether CBP’s actions to implement President Trump’s IEEPA tariffs can be considered protestable, as (among other things) it may be argued that the agency is not making an independent policy choice in implementing those tariffs.

Given the above, parties have turned to other litigation avenues to seek relief outside of CBP. In particular, importers that have already paid tariffs also may file a civil suit directly with the CIT, in litigation that is appealable to the Federal Circuit.

Filing Suit with CIT Preserves Refund Rights

Costco’s recent complaint highlights why many importers are turning to the CIT before CBP liquidates its entries. As have others, Costco filed suit to preserve its right to recover refunds of IEEPA tariffs after CBP denied its request to extend liquidation, leaving the company facing a December 15, 2025 liquidation deadline.

Numerous companies across diverse industries have filed similar suits in the CIT to preserve their rights, including businesses in the following industries:

• Automotive parts and systems manufacturing
• Cosmetics and personal care
• Food product and manufacturing
• Plastics and molded components
• Metal forming
• Aerospace and defense
• Power transmission
• Consumer fitness
• Solar energy
• Packing solutions
• Metal recycling
• Industrial gas turbine
• Foam products manufacturing
• Biotechnology and medical device production

With liquidation dates underway and CBP declining requests for extensions, importers face procedural risks independent of the Supreme Court’s timeline. Filing suit in the CIT now is therefore a protective step to ensure the maximum chance that refund eligibility is preserved and provides an independent basis for a challenge to the IEEPA tariffs.

Uncertainty Surrounding Pending Supreme Court Decision

The uncertainty surrounding how the Supreme Court will ultimately rule and what form any remedy might take, cannot be overstated. Even if the Court agrees that the IEEPA tariffs (or a subset of them) are unlawful, there are multiple ways importers could still face hurdles to obtaining relief. During oral argument, the government suggested that only the named plaintiffs in the litigation should receive refunds, raising the possibility that the government would take the position that all other importers could be excluded absent their own litigation. This also raises the possibility that only importers of record who have taken affirmative steps—such as filing a protest or initiating a CIT action—would be eligible for refunds.

The Administration has repeatedly emphasized the extent of revenue attributable to the tariffs at issue in the Supreme Court litigation, and the recently released National Security Strategy explicitly centers tariffs and market access as core tools of U.S. leverage. All of which suggests that U.S. officials may act swiftly in response to any adverse ruling to resurrect tariff regimes that are struck down using different authorities or justifications and to limit the scope of any form of relief that would jeopardize tariff revenue.

Tariffs Under Different Authorities

Importers considering litigation should also be mindful that the Administration may quickly pivot to other tariff authorities covering the same products. As noted by former Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative Emily Kilcrease, at a Center for New American Security briefing, “There’s ample opportunity for the Trump administration to use other legal instruments in the event that the IEEPA tariffs get struck down.” Those authorities include Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. As we previously explained, these authorities come with limitations and restrictions and potentially open up other avenues for litigation.

Importantly, not all tariff actions are part of the pending litigation. Companies in sectors now subject to Section 232 tariffs (for example, automobiles and steel/aluminum) will need to distinguish carefully between the IEEPA duties that may be refundable and other tariffs that are not affected by these lawsuits. There may also be questions about the impact of any Supreme Court ruling on other IEEPA-based tariffs not directly at issue in the case. While the Administration’s ability to reconstruct the tariff regime under alternative authorities is expected to primarily be a forward-looking exercise, the Administration’s emphasis on the centrality of tariffs to its foreign policy goal suggests companies should not entirely discount the possibility that officials might look to alternate authorities as a retroactive justification to limit or avoid refunds broadly.

What Importers Should Do Now

Companies that import goods and owe duties covered by the IEEPA tariffs—particularly those with entries from 2025—should review their list of entries imported to determine the anticipated liquidation dates. Any entries scheduled to liquidate in the coming weeks or months may require immediate legal action to ensure the preservation of rights. Additionally, companies should assess now their overall financial exposure. If it imports high-value or high-volume merchandise, a company could be leaving behind the potential to recoup millions of dollars of potential refunds. Companies should also consider coordinating with their internal trade compliance, supply chain, and finance teams to assess the costs and advantages of litigation, as well as prepare for various outcomes from the Supreme Court and any new tariff regimes.

Ultimately, whether or not a company should pursue litigation is based on a multitude of factors, including the value of the potential refund, the applicability of tariffs supported by other regimes, the cost and complexity of information-sharing, and the willingness to be on a side adverse to the Government.

Conclusion

Recent lawsuits filed with the CIT underscore a critical message for all importers affected by IEEPA tariffs: the window to preserve refund rights may be closing quickly. Even a favorable Supreme Court ruling on the legality of the tariffs may not benefit companies whose entries have already liquidated without a timely protest or CIT action. Importers should promptly evaluate their exposure and determine what steps are necessary to protect their refund claims.

Associate Kara Podraza in the Washington, D.C. office also contributed to this article.

[1] On November 5, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in consolidated cases: V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, 149 F.4th 1312 (Fed. Cir.), cert. granted, No. 25-250, 2025 WL 2601020 (U.S. Sept. 9, 2025), and, Learning Res., Inc. v. Trump, 784 F. Supp. 3d 209 (D.D.C. 2025), cert. granted before judgment, No. 24-1287, 2025 WL 2601021 (U.S. Sept. 9, 2025), to determine whether IEEPA, 50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. (IEEPA), authorizes President Trump to impose tariffs. No opinion has been issued to date.