Parallel proceedings in two U.S. Court of International Trade cases, Euro-Notions Florida, Inc. v. United States (No. 25-00595) and V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States (No. 25-00066), are rapidly converging on what may be the central unresolved question in the IEEPA tariff refund process: must the government refund duties on entries that have liquidated and become final, even for importers who have not filed suit?

Background:

Following the Supreme Court’s February 2026 ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 146 S. Ct. 628 (2026), that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) had unlawfully collected approximately $166 billion in IEEPA duties, the government has been developing and deploying its Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) program to administer refunds. CAPE Phase 1 launched on April 20, 2026, and has been the subject of ongoing court supervision in multiple cases before Judge Richard K. Eaton at the Court of International Trade (CIT).

On May 26, 2026, CBP’s Executive Director for Trade Programs, Brandon Lord, filed a CAPE status update in Euro-Notions (ECF 30). The declaration reports that as of May 22, 2026, CAPE has accepted approximately $85 billion in potential refunds for processing, of which approximately $20.6 billion has been certified and transmitted to Treasury for disbursement. More than 15.8 million individual entries have passed entry-level validations and been accepted for removal of IEEPA duties.

However, 3.48 million entries have failed entry-level validations, primarily because the entry date falls outside CBP’s 90-day statutory reliquidation authority. These are the entries at the heart of the current dispute.

Following a closed status conference on May 27, 2026, the Court issued an order (ECF 31) expressing particular concern about the millions of informal entries, which represent typically lower-value consumer shipments, where liquidation occurred simultaneously with or nearly simultaneously with entry, meaning those entries became final almost immediately. The Court noted that the government has yet to present any proposal for addressing these entries.

VOS Selections Order to Show Cause:

On the same day following the closed status conference, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause in VOS Selections (ECF 86), lifting the stay in that case sua sponte and directing the parties to explain why the Court should not remove the suspension on its prior injunction ordering CBP to liquidate or reliquidate, without regard to IEEPA duties, all entries subject to those duties. The government’s response was due June 4, 2026, and a hearing is set for June 9, 2026.

The Court’s May 29, 2026, order (ECF 89) provides important context: it observes that while CAPE has processed substantial refunds to date, most have gone to large importers, and that the government has not proposed a method for ensuring refunds reach small importers as well. The Court has indicated that Commissioner Rodney S. Scott’s testimony is necessary to confirm whether it is U.S. policy to refund duties to all importers, large and small alike.

DOJ’s Motion to Amend and Appeal:

In VOS Selections, the DOJ filed a Motion to Amend (ECF 88) seeking to substitute lower-ranking CBP officials for Commissioner Scott at the June 9 hearing, relying on the “apex doctrine” governing compelled testimony of high-ranking officials. The Court denied that motion on May 29 (ECF 89). The DOJ appealed the Court’s universal injunction to the Federal Circuit and is seeking a stay limiting the injunction to the specific importer-plaintiffs in each case, citing Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025).

In the appeal, the Federal Circuit’s treatment of the universal injunction question may determine whether all importers, including those who have not sued, can obtain refunds for finally liquidated entries without individual litigation.

Central Legal Dispute:

The filings crystallize a sharp disagreement between the Court and the government on the treatment of finally liquidated entries and those for which more than 180 days have passed since liquidation with no timely protest and no litigation initiated.

The Court’s position is that its injunction requires CBP to reliquidate and refund all such entries regardless of whether the importer has filed suit, because the underlying duties were unlawfully collected. The government’s position is that once an entry has liquidated and become final, CBP has no statutory authority to reliquidate absent a court order in a case to which that specific importer is a party. CBP cites Shinyei Corp. of America v. United States, 355 F.3d 1297, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2004), for the proposition that finality bars agency-initiated reliquidation outside of APA-based litigation.

Resolution of that question through appeal appears likely, and the outcome will determine whether importers with finally liquidated entries must individually pursue litigation to obtain refunds.

CAPE’s Current Processing:

Based on CBP’s current declarations to the Court, CAPE Phase 1 is designed to handle two categories: (1) unliquidated entries, and (2) liquidated entries within CBP’s 90-day statutory reliquidation window. CBP has also indicated it is planning additional CAPE phases to address non-final entries preserved by timely protest, though no specific deadline has been committed to for those later phases.

Entries that have liquidated and gone final, with no timely protest and no litigation, are not currently being processed and remain the subject of the dispute described above.

Implications for Importers:

Importers who do not have any finally liquidated entries because their entries remain unliquidated, are within the 90-day reliquidation window, or were preserved by a timely protest remain well-positioned to receive refunds through CAPE without litigation, provided their CAPE declarations are properly filed and ACH banking information is on file with CBP.

Importers with entries that have liquidated and gone final face greater uncertainty. If the government appeals and obtains a stay of the universal injunction, those importers may need to file individual actions at the Court of International Trade to obtain refunds.

Importers and counsel should confirm that any applicable CAPE declarations have been submitted and that necessary ACH information has been provided to CBP. Importers with potentially finally liquidated entries, or with entries approaching the 180-day mark from liquidation, should assess their options promptly. Preserving entry finality through a timely protest, or initiating litigation at the Court of International Trade, may be necessary depending on the outcome of the pending appeal.

McGuireWoods and McGuireWoods Consulting will continue to monitor developments closely and are available to assist clients with assessing the impact of these changes on their operations, revising import/export strategies and ensuring compliance with the evolving trade framework.