The Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026, decision in Learning Resources changed the framework for importers that paid duties imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). For many companies, the principal question is now practical: Which entries are affected, how should recovery rights be preserved and pursued, and whether a third-party sale of those rights may satisfy business needs more effectively than waiting for the administrative process to mature.

This paper addresses the current procedural setting, steps importers can take now to preserve position, and the principal commercial considerations that should inform a decision to monetize reimbursement rights.1

The Legal and Procedural Setting

The current record suggests that the size of the potential recovery pool is extraordinary. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) represented to the Court of International Trade that, as of March 4, 2026, more than 330,000 importers had paid or deposited approximately $166 billion in IEEPA duties across more than 53 million entries, including about 20.1 million unliquidated entries.2

In Atmus Filtration, Judge Eaton stated that importers of record whose entries were subject to IEEPA duties are entitled to benefit from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Learning Resources, and he ordered CBP to liquidate unliquidated entries and reliquidate non-final entries without the IEEPA duties.3 Two days later, the Court suspended immediate compliance after CBP explained that its existing systems were not built to process refunds at this scale, and it directed the government to report on progress toward a refund process.4 On March 19, 2026, the CBP submitted a status update to the CIT indicating that key system components ranged from approximately 45% - 80% complete.5

On March 31, 2026, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) submitted another status update, explaining that Phase 1 of the system will only process unliquidated entries or entries within the 90-day voluntary reliquidation window.

CBP’s March 6 declaration and subsequent March 12, 19, and 31 status updates are especially important because they outline the operating model likely to shape the next phase. CBP stated it was making all possible efforts to have that functionality ready by April 20, 2026.6 CBP said it expects to develop ACE functionality that would:

  • Allow an importer to submit a consolidated declaration of affected entries
  • Automate recalculation of duties and interest
  • Aggregate refund payments on an importer basis

If refunds are paid through liquidation or reliquidation, statutory interest should be an important component of claim valuation. Under 19 U.S.C. § 1505, excess customs duties refunded upon liquidation or reliquidation include interest, which accrues from the date of deposit through the date of liquidation or reliquidation. As a result, payment timing may materially affect total recovery.

What Importers Can Do Now

Because the refund process is evolving, importers should focus on claim preservation, evidentiary organization, and operational readiness. Early action improves recovery prospects and preserves flexibility, including the option to explore a sale of the reimbursement rights to a third party.

Complete ACE and ACH enrollment for each importer of record

Ensure electronic refund capability is in place by confirming your automated commercial environment (ACE) account is active and includes automated clearing house (ACH) information that can be used to facilitate a refund payment. CBP’s Interim Final Rule, Electronic Refunds (91 Fed. Reg. 21), provides that, effective February 6, 2026, all refunds are to be issued electronically. In its submission to the Court, CBP reported that only 21,423 entities had completed the required setup despite approximately 330,566 importers having paid IEEPA duties or deposits. CBP further stated that, until importers complete this process, refunds “will be rejected,” and noted that it had already been unable to process thousands of refunds as a result.7

Identify relevant entries and determine the status of each

Entry status may drive the available route to recovery:

  • For already liquidated entries, protests generally must be filed within 180 days after liquidation or reliquidation.8
  • For entries that may still be within CBP’s voluntary reliquidation period, or for entries that are already final, importers should coordinate immediately with customs counsel to assess the available procedural steps.9,10

Importers should understand the status of the various IEEPA duties so that they can make an informed decision on how to best preserve their rights.

Prepare and preserve documentation needed for refund

CBP indicated that each importer of record will file a Declaration to be submitted through the ACE system that includes a list of entries on which IEEPA duties were paid. Assuming this process holds, entities seeking a refund can begin preparing a claim file at the importer of record level. The file should tie each affected entry to the relevant CBP Form 7501, the applicable Chapter 99 line, duty payment history, post-summary corrections, protests, and supporting calculations. That work should begin now, especially because CBP has explained that entry data does not always isolate IEEPA duties cleanly and may require reconstructed calculations.11

Evaluate potential value of the tariff refund and business alternatives

Tariff refund rights can be evaluated to educate management on potential recoveries, timeline, and risk, as well as potential alternative monetization strategies. There may also be financial reporting considerations related to tariff refund rights.

Evaluating Monetization of Tariff Refund Claims

A third-party sale of tariff refund rights may be beneficial for companies that prefer certainty and/or near-term liquidity, or to assist with P&L management. In practice, the economics of a sale are shaped by a number of factors, including:

  • Claim size
  • Documentation quality
  • Counterparty risk
  • Procedural posture
  • Expected timing
  • Appeal risk
  • Scope of obligations the seller must retain

For some importers, the principal benefits are straightforward. Monetization can convert a contingent recovery into current cash, hedge delay or appeal risk, support working capital and broader cash flow management, and reduce uncertainty in earnings planning and transaction timelines. These considerations can be especially relevant when a sponsor-backed business is approaching a sale, a refinancing, or another event that benefits from a cleaner balance sheet and a more certain recovery profile.

The deal terms are critical. A buyer will likely focus on assignment mechanics, authority to transfer the claim, the accuracy of the claim schedule, cooperation obligations, access to books and records, control over administrative filings or litigation decisions, tax treatment, and the treatment of any government setoff or competing lien.

Importers should also evaluate the liabilities they may retain after a sale. A seller that transfers its refund rights will likely remain responsible for claims by customers or other downstream counterparties that contend they bore the economic burden of the tariff or are entitled to reimbursement. That allocation of responsibility should be explicit in the transaction agreement, along with any indemnity, cooperation, or information-sharing obligations.

Where Stout Can Add Value

Stout’s team of professionals can help importers:

  • Assess the value of their tariff refund rights
  • Support executive decision making on whether to monetize
  • Connect importers with buyers
  • Support preparation of the Declaration required for reimbursement

Stout is not a law firm. This paper is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should not act upon this information without first seeking qualified professional counsel

This paper reflects public decisions, court orders, and related filings available as of March 31, 2026.

  1. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. ___ (2026).
  2. Declaration of Brandon Lord ¶ 12, Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, Ct. No. 26-01259 (Ct. Int’l Trade Mar. 6, 2026), ECF No. 31.
  3. Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, Ct. No. 26-01259, Order at 1-3 (Ct. Int’l Trade Mar. 4, 2026), ECF No. 21.
  4. Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, Ct. No. 26-01259, Order (Ct. Int’l Trade Mar. 6, 2026), ECF No. 33; Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, Ct. No. 26-01259, Order at 1-2 (Ct. Int’l Trade Mar. 6, 2026), ECF No. 34.
  5. Brandon Lord Declaration, Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, No. 26-cv-01259 (Ct. Int’l Trade Mar. 19, 2026), ECF No. 47
  6. Brandon Lord Declaration ¶ 29, Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, No. 26-cv-01259 (Ct. Int’l Trade Mar. 6, 2026), ECF No. 31
  7. Electronic Refunds, 91 Fed. Reg. 21 (Jan. 2, 2026); Declaration of Brandon Lord ¶ 22, Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, Ct. No. 26-01259 (Ct. Int’l Trade Mar. 6, 2026), ECF No. 31.
  8. 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3)(A).
  9. 19 U.S.C. § 1501; Declaration of Brandon Lord ¶ 16, Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, Ct. No. 26-01259 (Ct. Int’l Trade Mar. 6, 2026), ECF No. 31.
  10. 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a).
  11. Declaration of Brandon Lord ¶ 18, Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, Ct. No. 26-01259 (Ct. Int’l Trade Mar. 6, 2026), ECF No. 31.