What Importers and Claim Purchasers Need to Know About Preserving Tariff Refund Claims After New Court Order

On December 15, 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade (the “CIT”) entered an order offering some much-needed clarity for importers and claim purchasers looking to preserve their tariff refund claims. The CIT held that liquidation of imports is not a bar to payment of refunds on those imports since the imports can be reliquidated if the Supreme Court determines that the tariffs issued under the International Emergency Powers Act (“IEEPA”) were unlawful. ^[1]

The plaintiffs in the case, a group of importers led by AGS Company Automotive Solutions, sought a preliminary injunction to suspend the liquidation of entries with IEEPA tariffs pending the Supreme Court’s decision. In its December 15 order, the CIT denied the request, explaining that the injunction was unnecessary because the Government has stated unequivocally that it will not oppose refund orders and will issue refunds for liquidated tariffs with interest once a final, unappealable decision declares the tariffs unlawful. In the CIT’s view, the Government would be judicially estopped from taking a contradictory position later should the Supreme Court find in favor of the importers. See Sumecht NA, Inc. v. United States, 923 F.3d 1340, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the CIT may not have the authority to order reliquidation of liquidated entries.

What This Means for Importers

While the CIT denied the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief, its rationale for doing so should provide importers some comfort:

• First, the CIT said that the Government will be held to its word in this and related cases when it represents in litigation that it has the authority to issue tariff refunds if those tariffs are later found to be unlawful.
  • The CIT based this conclusion on the legal concept of judicial estoppel, which imposes a legal determination on a party if the same legal issue comes up later in litigation.
  • Importantly, unlike other parties, the Government cannot be collaterally estopped—it can only be estopped if the legal issue in question involves the same parties to the proceeding. United States v. Mendoza, 464 U.S. 154, 162 (1984).
  • This means that the Government will be held to the positions it has taken in specific litigation involving the same parties, but non-parties to those litigations will likely still have to litigate their reliquidations and refunds separately before the CIT. However, it would be unlikely for the CIT to conclude that some importers, but not others, are entitled to refunds if they file timely challenges.
• Second, the CIT clarified that it has the explicit power to order reliquidation and refunds if the tariffs are ultimately declared unlawful.
  • This puts to rest—at least before the CIT—any question about whether the CIT would be authorized to order the Government to issue refunds for duties paid pursuant to the IEEPA tariffs when entries have already been liquidated.
  • The CIT also stated that it will retain its jurisdiction to reliquidate tariff refund claims for the two-year statute of limitations that applies under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i).
• Third, the CIT explained that plaintiffs do not have to file a protest before seeking judicial relief for cases involving legal challenges to duties, such as the challenges at issue here.
  • Ordinarily plaintiffs must file a protest with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) before seeking judicial relief. Under that process, importers may challenge final liquidations by filing a protest of the CBP’s decision, for each individual entry. See 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c); 19 C.F.R. § 159.11.
  • If the CBP denies a protest, 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) gives the CIT exclusive jurisdiction over “any civil action commenced to contest the denial of a protest.” But that additional step is not necessary if filing a protest with the CBP would be futile, as is the case where the importer challenges the constitutionality or legality of the tariffs—questions that the CBP itself cannot determine.
  • Challenges of this type instead fall within the CIT’s “residual jurisdiction,” provided for by 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i). See Thomson Consumer Elecs., Inc. v. United States, 247 F.3d 1210, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

Takeaways

Instead, based on the CIT’s order, importers may invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) as a basis to claim refunds in the future, if the Supreme Court eventually holds the tariffs are unlawful. As the CIT’s jurisdiction is subject to a two-year statute of limitations, importers should make sure to file any such action seeking refund of IEEPA tariffs within such period. That said, the CIT may not have the final word on these remedial questions, which could be appealed to the Federal Circuit or possibly the Supreme Court.

[1] The Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case on November 5, 2025, but has yet to issue a decision. (You can read our summary of the major takeaways from oral argument here.)