Fallout from Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump.
Companies now have a clearer path to seek refunds following the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision invalidating more than $170 billion in tariffs assessed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”). For background, read this article. While the Supreme Court’s majority opinion did not address refund mechanics, the U.S. Court of International Trade moved quickly to fill that gap. On March 4, 2026, Judge Richard K. Eaton ordered U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to liquidate or reliquidate all entries that are “not final” without IEEPA and held that the CIT retains jurisdiction to order refunds to all importers, not just those who were parties to the litigation.
Companies Can Apply Through the CAPE Portal
In response, CBP launched the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (“CAPE”) portal on April 20, 2026. Companies can now use the portal to request refunds for tariffs paid under the invalidated IEEPA orders. Phase One of the CAPE process covers only certain unliquidated entries and entries within 80 days of liquidation, meaning only certain tariff payments made starting January 30, 2026, plus pending payments, are currently eligible. The government expects to initially accept refund claims worth approximately $127 billion collected. Refunds will be issued in a lump sum per importer including interest, rather than per shipment. CBP estimates that refunds will be issued within 60 to 90 days after approval, though additional entry reviews could extend that timeline. Future phases of CAPE are expected to address entries liquidated more than 80 days ago, as well as more complex scenarios involving antidumping duties, bonded warehouse entries, and duty drawback claims.
Take Advantage of the CAPE Portal and What Isn’t Eligible for Refund
Companies seeking refunds should act promptly and strategically. Start by identifying all entries subject to IEEPA tariffs for the period February 4, 2025 to February 24, 2026. Compile entry numbers, dates of entry, amounts paid, product classifications, and liquidation dates. Gather supporting documentation, including invoices, entry summaries, and proof of payment. One critical distinction: the Supreme Court’s decision did not overturn duties assessed under Section 232 (e.g., steel and aluminum) or Section 301 (goods from China), so companies must carefully distinguish which duties are actually eligible for refund.
The legal landscape remains uncertain. The Administration has not confirmed whether it will attempt to return to court to block some or all refunds. Administration officials have hinted that “alternative authorities” could reduce amounts owed to importers. Meanwhile, some importers are bypassing the administrative process entirely and filing claims directly with the CIT, betting that standard litigation may prove more expedient. Given the scale of this process and shifting legal terrain, companies should engage counsel now to assess exposure, preserve rights, and chart the quickest path to a refund.