On April 20, 2026, the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (“CAPE”) portal, U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) electronic platform for accepting tariff refund claims, went live for Phase 1. Through CAPE, CBP plans to fulfill the U.S. Court of International Trade’s (CIT) recent directive in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States that CBP must refund more than $165 billion in tariffs that the Supreme Court in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump held the President lacked the authority to impose under the International Emergency and Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

With the refund process now open, it is essential for businesses and contractors to understand how refunds will be administered and the procedural requirements for securing them. This alert summarizes the key developments and practical considerations for importers navigating the post-Learning Resources and Atmus Filtration refund process.

Before the refund window narrows, businesses must understand these five critical requirements:

  1. Who is Eligible: Only importers of record who actually paid IEEPA-based tariffs, or a party the importer of record affirmatively designates via CBP Form 4811, may be eligible for a refund. Downstream purchasers who absorbed tariff pass-throughs must rely on contractual remedies against the IOR. Refunds are not available for tariffs paid under non-IEEPA authorities, such as “Section 232” or “Section 201” tariffs.  Phase 1 for refunds only covers certain unliquidated entries and certain entries liquidated within the past 80 days.
  2. National Reach for Refunds: Learning Resources stated that the President does not have the power to use IEEPA to impose broad tariffs, while Atmus Filtration stakes out firm powers for the CIT to rule with nationwide effect, even after Trump v. CASA limited most court’s power to impose nationwide injunctions. The CBP portal allows all importers of record affected by the IEEPA-based tariffs regardless of location to submit claims.
  3. Evaluate and Assess Entitlement to Refunds: Because additional costs attributable to tariffs may not have been specifically itemized, importers of record should assess and, if necessary, develop a well-defined and data-driven methodology for calculating tariff pass-throughs. For government contractors that treated IEEPA tariffs as allowable costs under a contract, it is also critical for them to consider whether any repayment or offset is due to the federal government and such calculations should be undertaken. The failure to do so can create potential exposure under the False Claims Act and may warrant discussion with knowledgeable counsel. Downstream purchasers and others in the supply chain (who are not eligible to directly claim refunds from CBP) should nevertheless also assess whether they have contractual or other legal remedies to seek compensation from the importer of record for tariff costs they absorbed.
  4. Utilize CAPE: CAPE is integrated into CBP’s centralized Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) which allows processing refunds through importer-submitted claims. The process includes validations, automated recalculation of duties and interest, liquidation/reliquidation of entries, and consolidated refund payments, which eliminates the need for most importers to file individual lawsuits. To get a refund you must be registered in CBP’s ACE system and be set up for Automated Clearing House (ACH) electronic funds transfers.
  5. Procedural Complexity Remain: Certain claims (e.g., those involving anti-dumping/countervailing duties or other issues) may be excluded from initial processing. Simpler claims will likely be issued first. All claims will need to be validated at multiple levels, and refunds will be issued in batches.

The path to Atmus Filtration began with the Trump administration’s aggressive trade policy starting in early 2025. As part of a broader effort to impose tariffs and reconfigure global trade, the President sought to use IEEPA in a novel manner, rather than, for example, it’s typical uses in the sanctions context, by imposing ad valorem tariffs paid upon entry into the United States.

Importers and trade groups began to challenge these tariffs almost immediately, arguing that IEEPA does not authorize the imposition of duties and that tariff-setting authority lies with Congress unless clearly delegated. The issue ultimately reached the Supreme Court, and in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the Supreme Court struck the IEEPA-based tariffs down on February 20, 2026, ruling that IEEPA does not grant the President the authority to impose taxes or duties. That decision effectively invalidated the tariffs and created the basis for widespread refund claims, as billions of dollars in duties had already been collected.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, importers sought relief in the CIT. In Atmus Filtration, the CIT addressed how to implement the Supreme Court’s decision in practice. On March 4, 2026, the CIT ordered the government to liquidate/reliquidate entries without regard to IEEPA, which ultimately extended relief broadly. CBP pushed back, saying it could not immediately process refunds at this scale due to the sheer volume of affected entries. CBP proposed building a new system to administer refunds in a centralized, automated way. The court has since been supervising this process, shifting the case from a merits dispute to an implementation and administration problem focusing on how to actually return the money to those that paid.

The Atmus Filtration decision underscores the critical importance of procedural compliance in tariff refund cases while providing clarity on the pathway forward for importers seeking relief. With billions of dollars in tariffs still subject to legal challenges, companies must carefully evaluate whether they have properly preserved their claims. Organizations that paid IEEPA tariffs and believe they may be entitled to a refund should contact Fluet’s experienced International Trade team immediately to assess their options and ensure compliance with all procedural requirements.