US Court of International Trade Orders Refund of IEEPA Tariffs: 5 Things You Need to Know

On March 4, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade issued an order that could put billions of dollars back into importers’ hands. The case is Atmus Filtration v. US, Ct. Int’l Trade, No. 1:26-cv-01259, order issued 3/4/26. Companies that paid tariffs on imported materials may be among the beneficiaries. Below are five things that companies should understand right now.

1. The Supreme Court Invalidated the Tariffs

In February 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give the President authority to impose tariffs. As a result, tariffs that had been imposed under IEEPA — totaling roughly $170 billion — were invalidated. That left a critical question: how do importers get their money back?

2. A Federal Trade Court Ordered Refunds

On March 4, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade issued an order in Atmus Filtration v. United States addressing that question. The court directed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to remove IEEPA tariffs from affected entries and refund the difference. Importantly, the court indicated that refunds should apply broadly to importers, not just to the companies that originally filed lawsuits challenging the tariffs.

3. The Status of Your Entry May Not Matter

The court’s order directs Customs to address tariffs regardless of the procedural status of the entry. In practical terms, that means refunds may be available whether your entry is:

• Still unliquidated
• Already liquidated
• Somewhere in between in the administrative process

Customs has been instructed to finalize or reliquidate entries as necessary to remove the invalid tariffs.

4. Construction and Warehouse Management Companies May Have Significant Exposure

Construction projects are heavily dependent on materials. Companies that imported items such as steel, aluminum, mechanical equipment, or other building components during the tariff period may have paid substantial duties that are now potentially refundable. Those dollars often flowed through project pricing, change orders, subcontractor bids, and owner negotiations. Understanding your exposure now may help with cost recovery and ongoing project discussions.

5. Companies Should Consider Taking Protective Action

Although the decision is significant, the case is not over. The federal government is expected to appeal, and the refund process may evolve as the litigation continues. By the time the litigation is resolved, however, the deadline to submit challenges may have elapsed. Accordingly, anyone who has directly paid tariffs is urged to consider protective steps now, including:

• Identifying entries that included IEEPA tariffs
• Reviewing the amounts of duties paid
• Considering administrative protests with Customs to preserve rights
• Reviewing contracts to determine how many refunds should be allocated.

The Bottom Line

The Court of International Trade’s order creates a potentially significant refund opportunity for companies that paid IEEPA tariffs. However, the appellate process and the mechanics of refunds are still developing. Companies that identify their exposure early and preserve their rights will be best positioned to recover funds if the ruling ultimately stands. If you would like to discuss whether this issue may affect your projects, supply chain, or procurement strategy, please contact Kenneth Rubinstein or Nicholas Dube.