Refund Uncertainty Persists as IEEPA Tariff Refund Case is Dismissed
Refund Uncertainty Persists as IEEPA Tariff Refund Case is Dismissed
By John H. Kester
The Court of International Trade (“CIT”) on Wednesday, April 8, dismissed Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, et al., the case through which the CIT purported to develop a refund process for importers who paid billions of dollars in tariffs unlawfully imposed by the Trump Administration. Importers seeking clarity as to whether and how any refund process will occur are now faced with persistent, if not greater, uncertainty, and it remains GKG Law’s position that the most conservative approach is for importers to file their own complaints for refund before the CIT.
Although dismissal in Atmus was sought by the plaintiff for unspecified reasons, the result is favorable to the government, which is no longer required to provide updates in that matter as to any refund process, and which likely has additional time to fashion an argument against refunds altogether. In the March 4 hearing in Atmus, the government’s attorney stated it had then not yet directed that entries be liquidated without IEEPA duties because “the government is waiting until we have finalized our position on refunds.” The fact that CBP in Atmus subsequently described progress toward a refund tool did not mean the government ever broadly acquiesced to providing refund.
The Plaintiff in Atmus last month moved to combine other importers’ cases with the Atmus case, which Senior Judge Richard Eaton denied for unspecified reasons. According to the Plaintiff’s Motion, the government said it opposed so combining the cases because it had not had enough time to review and consider the proposal. However, it is possible the government simply had not finalized its strategy for how to fight refunds, and/or did not want one case deciding the fate of its arguments against refund for thousands of importers.
Many importers will have been unsatisfied with the Atmus case even prior to its dismissal, as the scope and immediate application of the Court’s Orders therein fluctuated, and as much of the action occurred in closed-door private meetings without including other importers seeking refund. That even that imperfect case is now dismissed as sought by the plaintiff should cause importers to question whether they are comfortable relying on another plaintiff to litigate their refund prospects.
GKG Law’s IEEPA tariff litigation team, which includes me, Brendan Collins, and Oliver M. Krischik, has already filed numerous complaints on behalf of individual importers, and we are prepared to continue to do so swiftly in the days ahead.
Please contact us if you have any questions or are interested in filing such a Complaint.
John H. Kester is a Customs attorney with GKG Law. He additionally passed Customs and Border Protection’s rigorous Customs Broker License Exam and his application for a Customs Broker License is pending. He is reachable at jkester@gkglaw.com.
Brendan Collins and Oliver M. Krischik, Principals with GKG Law, additionally participated in the firm’s numerous filings in opposition to the Section 301 tariffs implemented by President Trump’s first administration. They are reachable at bcollins@gkglaw.com and okrischik@gkglaw.com respectively.
