In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., the Supreme Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the executive branch to impose sweeping tariffs. The Court’s decision did not, however, create a self-executing refund system. The refund process has instead moved into the realm of customs law and under Court of International Trade supervision. The staged remedial system is known as CAPE (Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries).

CAPE is designed to receive declarations, validate declaration files and individual entries, remove IEEPA duty treatment where appropriate, liquidate or reliquidate accepted entries without IEEPA duties, consolidate refunds and interest, and send certified refund information to the U.S. Department of the Treasury for electronic payment.^[1] Phase one became available on April 20, 2026. By May 11, 2026, over 15 million entries had been accepted for removal of IEEPA duties, more than 8.3 million had been liquidated or reliquidated without IEEPA duties, and anticipated principal plus interest reached approximately $25.46 billion.^[2]

Although the numbers reveal progress, CAPE does not cover every claimant, nor does it readily transform every right to relief into immediate payment. CAPE is a system gateway, not a general refund decree. Only the Importer of Record (IOR) or the licensed customs broker who made the original entry can process a claim by filing a declaration.^[3] Moreover, only certain liquidated or unliquidated entries are eligible, leaving many entries in limbo. Even if a refund is accepted, the Department of the Treasury cannot process the payment if the claimant has not set up a proper electronic funds transfer, such as through the Automated Clearing House (ACH).

A substantial number of claims remain outstanding, and questions remain regarding who should receive payment or how entries outside ordinary liquidation windows should be handled. More broadly, there remains a lack of clarity regarding how a customs system built around entry-by-entry finality can reverse a national tariff program at scale.^[4]

The Holding in Learning Resources

The Supreme Court’s holding in Learning Resources is firm but narrow. The question presented was whether IEEPA empowers the president to impose sweeping open-ended tariffs in response to declared national security emergencies. The president had invoked IEEPA in response to two alleged foreign threats: the influx of illegal drugs from Canada, Mexico, and China, as well as large, persistent trade deficits. IEEPA does not expressly grant such powers in its text.^[5] Accordingly, the Court held that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. The Court began from the premise that the power to impose tariffs falls under the taxing power, which belongs to Congress. The government conceded that the president has no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs and instead relied on IEEPA’s grant of authority to “regulate . . . importation” as granting the power to impose tariffs.^[6] The Court rejected that reading.

The decisive statutory point was simple. IEEPA authorizes the president to “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit” importation or exportation, but it does not mention tariffs or duties.^[7] The Court found that omission significant because Congress has repeatedly delegated tariff authority in express terms and with limits on amount, duration, procedure, or subject matter.^[8]

The Court also rejected the idea that the word regulate carries the power to tax, stating that the power to regulate is distinct from the power to tax. The Court noted that a contrary reading would create a constitutional problem because IEEPA refers to both importation and exportation, while the Constitution forbids taxes on exports. Neighboring verbs in section 1702(a)(1)(B) of IEEPA also pointed toward control, blocking, prevention, and prohibition rather than revenue raising.^[9] The Court stated that it did not attempt to set the “metes and bounds” of the president’s authority to regulate importation under IEEPA because the only question before it was whether that authority includes the power to impose tariffs. That narrow framing seems to leave open the possibility for the president to exercise other non-tariff measures.

Why CAPE Was Created and Limits on Authority

The refund process began with the Court of International Trade’s effort to translate the Supreme Court’s merits holding into a workable customs remedy. In Atmus Filtration, the CIT stated that the plaintiff’s entries were among millions of entries subject to IEEPA duties and that all importers of record whose entries were subject to IEEPA duties were entitled to the benefit of Learning Resources.^[10] While CIT initially directed Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to cease collecting IEEPA duties and issue refunds on entries where duties were collected, CBP encountered operational and regulatory constraints. To address some of the operational challenges and implement an incremental refund system, CIT permitted CBP a delay.

The operational problem was that CBP did not have a ready means to issue mass refunds, nor could it stop processing entries as that could affect other types of unrelated duties. In a March 6, 2026 declaration, CBP Executive Director Brandon Lord explained that CBP’s ordinary liquidation and refund systems were not built for immediate reversal of millions of entry summaries. By March 4, 2026, over 330,000 importers had made more than 53 million entries involving IEEPA duties or duty deposits, totaling approximately $166 billion. About 20.1 million entries remained unliquidated. CBP also identified large numbers of entries scheduled to liquidate automatically, including approximately 339,000 entries with IEEPA duties scheduled for March 6 and approximately 333,000 more scheduled for March 13, 2026. Halting liquidation across the board risked deemed liquidation and potential conflicts with antidumping and countervailing duty administration.^[11]

The data structure made the problem even worse. Although importers were instructed to break out duties for each classification under the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule, importers frequently combine all applicable duties into the Chapter 1-97 classification. As a result, some entry summary records do not clearly identify the precise IEEPA portion. The manual alternative was not realistic. Automated Commercial Environment (ACE)—the United States’ digital platform for submitting imports and exports—allowed only 10,000 entry summary lines in a single mass processing submission, so CBP would need approximately 170,000 mass update actions to cover more than 1.68 billion entry summary lines. Similarly, manual processing of 53,173,939 entries would require 4,431,161 personnel hours and electronic payment readiness was also limited. CBP was unable to process 7,700 refunds for 2,897 importers because they had not yet completed the steps to receive their refund electronically.^[12] To address these challenges, CAPE was created.

While CAPE, alongside its proposed upgrades, addresses many operational issues, CBP remains regulatorily constrained regarding which entries it has authority to issue refunds on. The CBP entry process provides for entries to be processed, or liquidated, at the time of entry into the United States through an informal entry process or over time through a formal entry process.^[13] Under the formal entry process, an entry remains in an unliquidated status while CBP determines whether the duties assessed are correct. CBP generally processes these entries within 314 days of the date the goods enter the United States customs territory because, unless extended, entries become final as a matter of law after one year.^[14] During this unliquidated period, CBP has broad authority to issue refunds of overpaid tariff amounts, including amounts paid on unlawful IEEPA tariffs.

Section 173.2 of Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations permits CBP only 90 days to voluntarily review and correct a liquidated entry, unless the importer or another eligible party has filed an administrative protest.^[15] The implication is that CBP lacks regulatory authority to issue refunds on liquidated entries that are more than 90 days old, leaving millions of entries effectively in limbo.

CAPE After Launch

CAPE phase one became available in ACE on April 20, 2026. The first week showed both demand and functionality. As of April 26, 2026, 75,306 CAPE declarations had been submitted and 47,315 had passed file validation.^[16] File-validated declarations covered 11,222,927 entries that passed entry-specific validations and were accepted for removal of IEEPA duties through CAPE. A total of 2,124,394 entries included submitted declarations that passed file validation but were rejected because they failed entry-specific validation—a secondary check in the CAPE system.^[17]

The Court of International Trade’s April 28, 2026, order in Euro-Notions stated that approximately 21 percent of IEEPA-affected entries had been accepted for removal of IEEPA duties through CAPE and roughly 3 percent had been liquidated and entered the refund stage, including issuance of refunds from the Department of the Treasury.^[18] The CIT also recorded CBP’s expectation that the first refunds would be issued on or about May 11, 2026.

By May 11, the process had accelerated. As of that date, 126,237 CAPE declarations had been submitted and 86,874 had passed file validation. Those declarations covered 15,123,221 entries that passed entry-specific validation and were accepted for removal of IEEPA duties through CAPE. Of the accepted entries, 8,338,081 had been liquidated or reliquidated without IEEPA duties.^[19] Monetary progress is also significant. The anticipated duty refund and interest amount for those 8,338,081 liquidated or reliquidated entries amounted to approximately $25.46 billion.^[20]

Phase one capabilities are addressing a large population of claimants to allow for refund consolidation and treasury transmission. CAPE can receive batch declarations, screen files, test entries within those declarations, and accept qualifying entries for IEEPA duty removal. It can also liquidate or reliquidate accepted entries without IEEPA duties and calculate anticipated principal and interest. These are major changes from early March 2026, when CBP maintained that immediate entry-by-entry processing would require millions of personnel hours and would disrupt ordinary customs administration.^[21]

The CAPE Filing Request and Two Validation Gates

A CAPE declaration should be understood as a batch refund filing request in ACE. It is not a protest, a post-summary correction, or an automatic refund. According to CBP officials, the initial filing step involves an importer filing a declaration in ACE that includes a list of entries on which IEEPA duties were paid.^[22] The declaration therefore functions as the vehicle that tells ACE which entries the filer wants CAPE to review for IEEPA duty removal.

The first screen is file validation, which determines whether the CAPE declaration itself can move forward as a usable submission. Many users have reported difficulties saving files in the correct format, often because they did not use the provided file template or were unfamiliar with how to change the default save settings on their device. As of May 11, 2026, 126,237 CAPE declarations had been submitted and 86,874 declarations passed the file validation.^[23] 

The second screen is entry-specific validation. After a declaration passes file validation, ACE tests the individual entries listed in that declaration. This consists of a series of validations on each entry within the declaration, followed by automatic recalculation of the duty owed without IEEPA tariffs and with applicable interest.^[24]  

As of April 26, 2026, 47,315 declarations had passed file validation, but 2,124,394 entries included on those declarations were rejected for failing entry-specific validation.^[25] In other words, even when a file is valid, individual entries contained within it may not be currently eligible for processing, may have data that does not support automated removal, or may fall into a category that CAPE cannot yet process.

The CAPE filing request process is therefore precise. The filer submits a CAPE declaration in ACE. ACE tests whether the declaration can be processed. If the declaration fails, the entries do not move to entry validation through that file. If the declaration passes, ACE tests each listed entry. If an entry passes, CAPE accepts it for removal of IEEPA duties. If the entry fails, it can be submitted again to check whether the failure is due to user error or something else. Accepted entries then proceed toward liquidation or reliquidation without IEEPA duties, refund consolidation, and ACH confirmation before finally being sent to the Department of the Treasury for payment.^[26] 

This structure gives CAPE both its strength and its limits. It avoids manual refund work for millions of individual entries, and it also forces each entry through system controls. The entry controls matter because refunds do not depend only on whether a duty was unlawful in the abstract. Although CAPE reduces the administrative burden, it does not eliminate customs law finality or entry-specific eligibility.

Payment Stage

CAPE’s refund process does not end when an entry is accepted, liquidated, or reliquidated without IEEPA duties. Mr. Lord’s May 2026 declaration stated that only a portion of the refunds and interest payments for the 8,338,081 liquidated or reliquidated entries had been consolidated and sent to the treasury for payment processing.^[27]

Under the current process, refunds are permitted primarily based on two variables: (1) the IOR or original licensed customs broker makes the claim, and (2) the entry is either unliquidated or the date of liquidation is within CBP’s authority to review and correct.^[28] Many claimants that have the ultimate right to repayment under contract law are not the IOR and cannot locate the IOR or the original licensed customs broker. Moreover, CBP has mandated that only liquidated entries for which liquidation occurred within 80 days of the IOR or original licensed customs broker filing an accepted declaration and entry are eligible. This 80-day window provides CBP with 10 days to process the entry before its authority under section 173.2 of Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations expires. The window is rolling, so with each passing day, claimants who sit on their rights to claim a refund must wait for future claim mechanisms.

Electronic payment readiness remains a bottleneck, especially for small importers, as CBP’s submission of consolidated refunds is subject to confirmation of ACH information. Electronic payments are part of the treasury’s broader anti-fraud mandate that took effect earlier in 2026. As of May 11, 2026, 1,880 consolidated refunds had not been transmitted for payment because ACH account information had not been provided by the IOR or its authorized Form 4811 designee.^[29]

The unresolved payment issue separates a legal refund right from actual disbursement. A claimant can have entries accepted by CAPE, with duties removed and liquidation or reliquidation completed, yet still experience delay if the payment recipient has not completed the electronic payment path. The immediate solution is administrative rather than legal; the IOR or authorized designee must provide accurate ACH information and maintain current refund recipient information so that CBP can transmit the consolidated refund to the treasury. ^[30]

What Remains Unsolved

Several groups of problems remain unresolved. The April 28, 2026 Euro-Notions order specifically identified reconciliation entries, certain suspended entries, and liquidated entries as categories not eligible for CAPE phase one. The same order noted reports that IEEPA duties were still being collected on reconciliation entries, such as when an entry value increase results in an adjustment to duties.^[31] Reconciliation entries can change the value, classification, or other duty elements after the original entry, which can create new duty accounting questions.

The gap between broad remedial language and current system capacity is another ongoing issue. The April 7, 2026, Euro-Notions order contains broad language directing reliquidation of entries for which liquidation is final, without regard to IEEPA duties. However, the same order suspended immediate compliance.^[32] The April 28 order then identified finally liquidated entries as a category not eligible for CAPE phase one.^[33]

User access and system navigation problems similarly remain unresolved. CIT received reports that claimants attempting to use CAPE reported problems accessing ACE, including long wait times to reset usernames and passwords, over-registration of training events, and confusion over identifying the correct importer to make a CAPE declaration. In the same order detailing these reports, CIT raised questions about the applicable interest rate and the method CBP uses to calculate interest. CBP represented that it would issue guidance, including updates to the FAQ section of its website.^[34]

Finally, there is still uncertainty regarding rejected entries. CAPE rejection does not necessarily mean that no refund is due. It simply means the entry did not pass relevant validations in the current CAPE stage. Mr. Lord’s April 2026 declaration stated that more than 2.1 million entries were rejected at the entry-specific stage even though their declarations had passed file validation.^[35] Those rejected entries need sorting. Some may require corrected data or may belong to later CAPE phases, while others might require administrative or judicial treatment or protest reservation. Ultimately, existing regulation does not grant CBP broad power to reliquidate every entry.

Moving Forward

With each passing day, more entries are falling beyond Customs and Border Protection’s authority to reliquidate, leaving an increasing number of otherwise eligible claims without an available administrative remedy. One way to make CAPE more transparent and effective would be for CBP to provide more precise rejection guidance. A generic rejection is not enough for a system that affects millions of entries, and filers need to know whether an entry failed because it lacks an IEEPA duty code, is outside the current phase, or falls into a completely different category of review.

Clarity is needed from CBP in other areas as well. For example, the difference between legal eligibility for a refund and payment readiness is critical and should be communicated. This can be communicated through direct notice to affected importers of record and designees, a dedicated ACH correction channel, and clear instructions for entities without a current ACE payment setup. Similarly, there is a need for a clean explanation of CAPE’s interest calculation method. Some interest can be calculated automatically in ACE while other circumstances require manual calculations, including entry summaries with duty deposits or non-IEEPA refunds on multiple dates.^[36] A transparent interest explanation would help separate calculation problems from eligibility problems.

CBP should also provide additional guidance regarding reconciliation entries. The April 28, 2026, order reports that IEEPA duties were still being collected on reconciliation entries when value increases resulted in duty adjustments.^[37] These processes must be addressed to avoid new IEEPA-related collections after the merits decision. CBP can address this by identifying when a reconciliation entry should exclude IEEPA duties, how prior IEEPA payments will be matched to reconciliation changes, and whether CAPE or a separate reconciliation procedure will process refunds.

CBP may eventually need to address a broader range of claimants in later phases as well. Over the course of a year, the IOR may no longer be available for a variety of reasons, including a merger, acquisition, dissolution, or bankruptcy. The IOR also might have assigned or sold its refund claims to another party with a contractual right to repayment. Regardless, importers of record seeking assistance from a customs broker are significantly constrained because only the broker that filed the original entry may submit a declaration on behalf of the IOR. This limitation excludes otherwise legitimate claimants and creates an additional barrier to recovery, particularly where the original broker is no longer available or the claimant lacks a relationship with the broker that filed the entry.

Protest, Finality, and Litigation Options

Customs law attaches consequences to liquidation. That is why a refund strategy cannot depend only on the Supreme Court’s merits decision in Learning Resources. If an entry remains unliquidated, CBP can liquidate without IEEPA duties. If an entry has liquidated but remains within the voluntary reliquidation window, CBP can reliquidate to correct errors. If the entry is outside that window but within the protest period, the protest mechanism becomes critical. ^[38]

The broad language in the Court of International Trade’s April 7, 2026, Euro-Notions order should not be mistaken for requiring immediate payment of every finally liquidated entry. The order directed reliquidation of finally liquidated entries without regard to IEEPA duties, but it suspended immediate compliance.^[39] The CIT’s April 28, 2026, order identified finally liquidated entries as outside CAPE phase one.^[40] Until a later CAPE phase or regulation supplies the operating path, finality remains a procedural risk.

The protest path has two functions. First, it preserves a claim within the statutory system. Second, it creates the jurisdictional path for a civil action contesting a denied protest under section 1581(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code.^[41] That does not mean every entry requires or is necessarily eligible for a protest.^[42] CAPE-eligible entries may move through the CAPE process without a protest, for example. Each claimant should consult with their legal counsel to determine the appropriate course of action for their specific facts and circumstances.

The Euro-Notions complaint also shows why section 1581(i) of Title 28 of the United States Code has remained part of the landscape for program-level challenges. Euro-Notions alleged jurisdiction under section 1581(i)(1)(B) of Title 28 of the United States Code and sought refund relief for IEEPA duties deposited with CBP.^[43] The Supreme Court likewise confirmed in Learning Resources that the challenge by V.O.S. Selections, Inc. fell within the CIT’s exclusive jurisdiction because the claims arose out of modifications to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule.^[44] The proper path still depends on the type of claim, the entry posture, and whether the issue is a denied protest, a systemwide administration problem, or a separate statutory theory.

De Minimis Treatment

De minimis treatment requires separate analysis because the legal question is different. Learning Resources invalidated IEEPA tariffs. The de minimis cases concern suspension of statutory and regulatory duty-free treatment for low-value shipments under section 1321 of Title 19 of the United States Code. The April 7, 2026, Euro-Notions order expressly states that nothing in the order addresses duty-free de minimis treatment under section 1321 of Title 19 of the United States Code, which was otherwise before the court in Axle.^[45]

Section 1321(a)(2)(C) of Title 19 of the United States Code authorizes duty-free admission for qualifying articles when the aggregate fair retail value in the country of shipment, imported by one person on one day, does not exceed the applicable threshold. The government’s Axle filing describes de minimis treatment as an administrative exemption implemented through CBP regulations, including section 10.151 of Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations and related special entry procedures.^[46] Section 1321(b) of Title 19 of the United States Code separately authorizes exceptions to the exemption when consistent with the statute’s purpose or necessary to protect revenue or prevent unlawful importations. ^[47]

The government’s post-Learning Resources position in Axle is that suspending de minimis treatment is not the same as imposing an IEEPA tariff. The government maintains that suspension of the de minimis privilege subjects goods valued at $800 or less to the same duties that would apply if the goods were valued above $800, rather than adding a new IEEPA duty.^[48] It also relies on IEEPA language authorizing the president to nullify, void, prevent, or prohibit the exercise of a right, power, or privilege with respect to property and to regulate, prevent, or prohibit importation.^[49] That position remains contested, but the consequence is clear: a payment made because an invalid IEEPA tariff was imposed belongs naturally in the CAPE refund framework. A payment made because duty-free de minimis treatment was suspended requires a different threshold analysis: whether the suspension was lawful, whether the payment was an ordinary duty rather than an invalid IEEPA duty, and who has the claim.^[50]

The entry path also differs between postal and non-postal shipments. For non-postal shipments that would otherwise have qualified for de minimis treatment, the executive orders required entry by a party qualified to make entry under an appropriate entry type in ACE, subject to applicable duties, taxes, fees, exactions, and charges. The government states that those shipments were redirected to existing formal and informal entry mechanisms, generally informal entry for merchandise below $2,500 and formal entry for merchandise at or above $2,500. Under that view, no special duty collection procedure was necessary for non-postal shipments because the ordinary dutiable entry system already existed.^[51]

Postal shipments are more complicated. For shipments sent through the international postal network that would otherwise qualify for de minimis treatment, the executive orders created interim special procedures until a new entry process is established. Under interim procedures, transportation carriers or qualified parties approved by CBP collect duties on postal shipments and periodically remit those duties to CBP. The continuing de minimis executive order then amended the interim postal duty-collection procedure by revising the duty rates that carriers or qualified parties must collect and remit.^[52]

The question of who is the claimant is especially important in de minimis cases. The Axle filing states that, to the extent Axle’s business model involved claiming duty-free de minimis treatment on behalf of ultimate purchasers, the benefit of the privilege belonged to those purchasers, not necessarily to Axle of Dearborn, Inc.^[53] The filing also stated that CBP had no record of duties remitted by Axle of Dearborn, Inc. or on its behalf for shipments sent through the international postal network.^[54]

If a payment is an invalid IEEPA ad valorem duty, CAPE may be the relevant path if the entry satisfies eligibility and validation. If the payment is an ordinary duty collected after suspension of de minimis treatment, the claimant must first address the legality of the suspension and identify the proper claimant. If the payment moved through the postal interim procedure, the payment chain may include carriers or qualified parties rather than a conventional importer of record.^[55]

What’s Next?

The current IEEPA refund landscape has two truths. The first is that Learning Resources supplies a clear merits rule: IEEPA does not authorize the executive branch to impose broad, sweeping tariffs. The second is that refund recovery depends on customs procedure. CAPE has solved a large part of the administrative problem, but it has not erased entry posture, liquidation finality, protest deadlines, validation rules, interest calculations, ACH requirements, or separate de minimis questions.

The remaining problems require careful classification. Reconciliation entries, certain suspended entries, finally liquidated entries, rejected entries, interest disputes, and ACH-blocked payments each requires a different solution. The next phase is the harder task of making the refund system complete, accurate, and fair for all entries and recipients legally entitled to a refund.

About the Authors:

Cynthia Wu is the Founder and Managing Partner of Concord & Wisdom, APC, and Co-Founder of Ameriglobal, LLC, a U.S. customs brokerage. She has completed advanced legal education in both China and the United States, including a U.S. Juris Doctor and an LL.M. in Taxation, and is admitted to practice in California, Florida, Texas, Washington, D.C., the U.S. Tax Court, and the U.S. Court of International Trade.

Marshall Olney is admitted to practice law in California, is admitted as a solicitor in England and Wales, and is also admitted before the U.S. Tax Court and the U.S. Court of International Trade. He holds a J.D. and MBA from Santa Clara University, an LL.M. in Business Tax Law from Loyola Marymount University, an LL.M. in International Tax Law from Texas A&M University, and an LL.M. in Chinese Business Law from Koguan Law School at Shanghai Jiao Tong University.

[1] Brandon Lord Decl. ¶¶ 27-29, Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, Ct. No. 26-01259 (Ct. Int’l Trade Mar. 6, 2026), ECF No. 31; Brandon Lord Decl. ¶¶ 3-6, Euro-Notions Fla., Inc. v. United States, Ct. No. 25-00595 (Ct. Int’l Trade May 12, 2026), ECF No. 28.

[2] Brandon Lord Decl. ¶¶ 3-5, Euro-Notions (May 12, 2026), ECF No. 28; Brandon Lord Decl. at 3 n.3, Euro-Notions (May 26, 2026), ECF No. 30 (correcting the anticipated refund figure to approximately $25.46 billion).

[3] See CBP, International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) Duty Refunds: Best Practices for Protecting Your Information Regarding IEEPA Refunds (May 20, 2026) available at https://www.cbp.gov/trade/programs-administration/trade-remedies/ieepa-duty-refunds (“Only the IOR for the listed entries or the authorized customs broker that filed the entries on behalf of the IOR may file the CAPE Declaration.”).

[4] Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 146 S. Ct. 628 (2026) (slip op. at 16, 20-21); Euro-Notions Fla., Inc. v. United States, Ct. No. 25-00595, Order at 1-3 (Ct. Int’l Trade Apr. 7, 2026), ECF No. 12.

[5] Learning Resources, 146 S. Ct. at 638 (slip op. at 1-3).

[6] Id. at 642 (slip op. at 6-21).

[7] 50 U.S.C. §1702(a)(1)(B); Learning Resources, 146 S. Ct. at 642 (slip op. at 14).

[8] Learning Resources, 146 S. Ct. at 642 (slip op. at 8-9, 14).

[9] U.S. Const. art. I, §9, cl. 5; Learning Resources, 146 S. Ct. at 643 (slip op. at 14-16).

[10] Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, Ct. No. 26-01259, Order at 1-2 (Ct. Int’l Trade Mar. 4, 2026), ECF No. 21.

[11] Brandon Lord Decl. ¶¶ 12-14, Atmus Filtration (Mar. 6, 2026), ECF No. 31.

[12] Id. ¶¶ 19-24.

[13] See 19 C.F.R. §§143.21-.28.

[14] See 19 C.F.R. §§159.11-.12.

[15] See 19 C.F.R. §173.2.

[16] Brandon Lord Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, Euro-Notions (Apr. 28, 2026), ECF No. 26.

[17] Id. ¶ 5.

[18] Euro-Notions, Order at 1 (Ct. Int’l Trade Apr. 28, 2026), ECF No. 27.

[19] Brandon Lord Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, Euro-Notions (May 12, 2026), ECF No. 28.

[20] Brandon Lord Decl. at 3 n.3, Euro-Notions (May 26, 2026), ECF No. 30.

[21] Brandon Lord Decl. ¶¶ 18-24, 27-29, Atmus Filtration (Mar. 6, 2026), ECF No. 31; Brandon Lord Decl. ¶¶ 3-6, Euro-Notions (May 12, 2026), ECF No. 28.

[22] Brandon Lord Decl. ¶ 27, Atmus Filtration (Mar. 6, 2026), ECF No. 31.

[23] Brandon Lord Decl. ¶ 3 & n.1, Euro-Notions (May 12, 2026), ECF No. 28.

[24] Brandon Lord Decl. ¶ 27, Atmus Filtration (Mar. 6, 2026), ECF No. 31.

[25] Brandon Lord Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, Euro-Notions (Apr. 28, 2026), ECF No. 26.

[26] Brandon Lord Decl. ¶¶ 27-29, Atmus Filtration (Mar. 6, 2026), ECF No. 31; Brandon Lord Decl. ¶¶ 3-6, Euro-Notions (May 12, 2026), ECF No. 28.

[27] Brandon Lord Decl. ¶ 5, Euro-Notions (May 12, 2026), ECF No. 28.

[28] Id.

[29] Brandon Lord Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, Euro-Notions (May 12, 2026), ECF No. 28.

[30] Id. ¶¶ 5-6.

[31] Euro-Notions, Order at 2 (Apr. 28, 2026), ECF No. 27.

[32] Euro-Notions, Order at 3 (Apr. 7, 2026), ECF No. 12.

[33] Euro-Notions, Order at 2 (Apr. 28, 2026), ECF No. 27.

[34] Euro-Notions, Order at 1-2 (Apr. 28, 2026), ECF No. 27.

[35] Brandon Lord Decl. ¶ 5, Euro-Notions (Apr. 28, 2026), ECF No. 26.

[36] Brandon Lord Decl. ¶ 20, Atmus Filtration (Mar. 6, 2026), ECF No. 31.

[37] Euro-Notions, Order at 2 (Apr. 28, 2026), ECF No. 27.

[38] 19 U.S.C. §§1501, 1514; Brandon Lord Decl. ¶ 2, Atmus Filtration (Mar. 6, 2026), ECF No. 31.

[39] Euro-Notions, Order at 3 (Apr. 7, 2026), ECF No. 12.

[40] Euro-Notions, Order at 2 (Apr. 28, 2026), ECF No. 27.

[41] 19 U.S.C. §§1514-1515; 28 U.S.C. §1581(a).

[42] 19 C.F.R. §§174.11-.12 (Protestants may file a protest within 180 days of decision relating to an entry for clerical errors, mistakes of fact, other inadvertences, or administrative decisions.).

[43] Compl. ¶¶ 3, 5-6, 11, Euro-Notions Fla., Inc. v. United States, Ct. No. 25-00595 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 14, 2025), ECF No. 2.

[44] Learning Resources, 146 S. Ct. at 637 n.1 (slip op. at 5 n.1).

[45] Euro-Notions, Order at 3 (Apr. 7, 2026), ECF No. 12.

[46] Defs.’ Resp. at 2-3, Axle of Dearborn, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, Ct. No. 25-00091 (Ct. Int’l Trade Apr. 9, 2026), ECF No. 59.

[47] 19 U.S.C. §1321(b); Defs.’ Resp. at 2-3, Axle, ECF No. 59.

[48] Defs.’ Resp. at 15-16, Axle, ECF No. 59.

[49] 50 U.S.C. §1702(a)(1)(B); Defs.’ Resp. at 6, 8-11, Axle, ECF No. 59.

[50] Defs.’ Resp. at 8 n.1, 14-15, 31-34, Axle, ECF No. 59.

[51] Id. at 31-32.

[52] Id. at 32-34.

[53] Defs.’ Resp. at 14-15, Axle, ECF No. 59.

[54] Carl S. Campbell Decl. ¶ 9, Axle, ECF No. 59-1.

[55] Defs.’ Resp. at 31-34, Axle, ECF No. 59.

Article originally published in Los Angeles Lawyer Magazine:

https://lacba.org/?pg=LosAngelesLawyerMagazine&pubAction=viewIssue&pubIssueID=69892&pubIssueItemID=465959