Blab News
CBP Official to Testify in Court on $166 Billion Tariff Refunds After Supreme Court Ruling
A U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) executive will appear before the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) on Tuesday to explain the agency’s plans for refunding import duties that were collected under President Donald Trump’s 2025 tariffs, which the Supreme Court declared illegal.
The hearing follows Judge Richard Eaton’s order that CBP reimburse every importer of record who paid the now‑invalidated tariffs. The decision came after the Supreme Court, on February 20, 2026, ruled that Trump had exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by imposing sweeping duties on goods from most trading partners.
CBP launched its Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) portal in April to begin processing refunds. By June 1, the agency had accepted claims totaling $89.6 billion and directed the Treasury Department to disburse $20.6 billion. The total duties collected before the Supreme Court strike were estimated at $166 billion.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has appealed Judge Eaton’s order. In a court filing, the DOJ argued that only companies involved in more than 2,500 lawsuits challenging the tariffs are legally entitled to refunds. The agency also requested that a deputy of CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott testify instead of the commissioner.
Eaton’s hearing will focus on whether CBP will comply with the court’s “universal” refund mandate or pursue an alternative approach. The court has asked CBP to explain its timeline for opening the refund process to importers whose tariff payments date back beyond the 80‑day window the agency has been using.
CBP’s current system limits refund applications to businesses that either had not finalized their tax bills before the Supreme Court struck down the tariffs in late February or whose bills were settled within the preceding 80 days. In a declaration ahead of the hearing, CBP’s executive assistant commissioner for trade, Susan Thomas, said the agency was developing a method to handle refunds for older shipments but would not process cases beyond the 80‑day window while Eaton’s order is under appeal.
The refund process itself is governed by CBP’s entry‑liquidation procedures. Importers or their customs brokers estimate the duties owed and deposit an amount toward the final bill. CBP then has 314 days, and up to four years if necessary, to review the declared goods, determine the actual amount owed, and either collect more or issue a refund. Once a shipment is liquidated, importers have 180 days to protest the determination.
The legal dispute has significant implications for thousands of importers. The five companies that brought the lawsuit that prompted Judge Eaton’s order argue that it would be unconstitutional for them to pay less duty than other companies that also paid the invalidated tariffs. They have requested that the court certify their case as a class action on behalf of “potentially tens of thousands of identically situated importers.”
The hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, and the Federal Circuit has temporarily suspended the requirement for Commissioner Scott to testify. Instead, the court will hear from Thomas, who will discuss CBP’s technical and procedural readiness to expand the refund process.
At the time of writing, the DOJ’s appeal is pending and the outcome of the hearing remains uncertain. CBP continues to process refund claims within the constraints of its current system, while the court seeks to determine whether the agency will broaden eligibility to all duty payers or adopt a different remedy.
The case illustrates the intersection of executive trade policy, judicial review, and administrative implementation. The final decision will shape the pace and scope of refunds for importers nationwide and could influence future trade‑related litigation and policy.
The court’s ruling and the DOJ’s appeal will be closely watched by importers, trade lawyers, and policymakers as the U.S. government works to resolve the financial impact of the invalidated tariffs.
The hearing follows Judge Richard Eaton’s order that CBP reimburse every importer of record who paid the now‑invalidated tariffs. The decision came after the Supreme Court, on February 20, 2026, ruled that Trump had exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by imposing sweeping duties on goods from most trading partners.
CBP launched its Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) portal in April to begin processing refunds. By June 1, the agency had accepted claims totaling $89.6 billion and directed the Treasury Department to disburse $20.6 billion. The total duties collected before the Supreme Court strike were estimated at $166 billion.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has appealed Judge Eaton’s order. In a court filing, the DOJ argued that only companies involved in more than 2,500 lawsuits challenging the tariffs are legally entitled to refunds. The agency also requested that a deputy of CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott testify instead of the commissioner.
Eaton’s hearing will focus on whether CBP will comply with the court’s “universal” refund mandate or pursue an alternative approach. The court has asked CBP to explain its timeline for opening the refund process to importers whose tariff payments date back beyond the 80‑day window the agency has been using.
CBP’s current system limits refund applications to businesses that either had not finalized their tax bills before the Supreme Court struck down the tariffs in late February or whose bills were settled within the preceding 80 days. In a declaration ahead of the hearing, CBP’s executive assistant commissioner for trade, Susan Thomas, said the agency was developing a method to handle refunds for older shipments but would not process cases beyond the 80‑day window while Eaton’s order is under appeal.
The refund process itself is governed by CBP’s entry‑liquidation procedures. Importers or their customs brokers estimate the duties owed and deposit an amount toward the final bill. CBP then has 314 days, and up to four years if necessary, to review the declared goods, determine the actual amount owed, and either collect more or issue a refund. Once a shipment is liquidated, importers have 180 days to protest the determination.
The legal dispute has significant implications for thousands of importers. The five companies that brought the lawsuit that prompted Judge Eaton’s order argue that it would be unconstitutional for them to pay less duty than other companies that also paid the invalidated tariffs. They have requested that the court certify their case as a class action on behalf of “potentially tens of thousands of identically situated importers.”
The hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, and the Federal Circuit has temporarily suspended the requirement for Commissioner Scott to testify. Instead, the court will hear from Thomas, who will discuss CBP’s technical and procedural readiness to expand the refund process.
At the time of writing, the DOJ’s appeal is pending and the outcome of the hearing remains uncertain. CBP continues to process refund claims within the constraints of its current system, while the court seeks to determine whether the agency will broaden eligibility to all duty payers or adopt a different remedy.
The case illustrates the intersection of executive trade policy, judicial review, and administrative implementation. The final decision will shape the pace and scope of refunds for importers nationwide and could influence future trade‑related litigation and policy.
The court’s ruling and the DOJ’s appeal will be closely watched by importers, trade lawyers, and policymakers as the U.S. government works to resolve the financial impact of the invalidated tariffs.
