I. Summary
On December 15, 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued a pivotal ruling in AGS Company Automotive Solutions v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Slip Op. 25-154). While the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to suspend liquidation, the rationale underlying the decision effectively secures the legal pathway for recovering duties paid under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
As long as this court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), the court can provide remedial relief, as the Government here acknowledges. In short, where such jurisdiction has attached, this court has authority to order reliquidation, and the Plaintiffs cannot claim that they would be denied a refund of tariffs paid in the event that the challenged Executive Orders are ultimately deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court.
CIT Slip Op. 25-154
Key Finding: The Court judicially confirmed that even if U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) “liquidates” (finalizes) plaintiff’s entries, the Government is legally obligated to reliquidate entries and refund all duties, with interest, provided the underlying tariffs are ultimately ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court.
Actionable Advice: To secure this refund protection, a company which is intended to recover its paid duties under IEEPA, must establish standing as a plaintiff. We strongly recommend that such interested parties should immediately file a complaint to join the ongoing litigation, either via class action or as a related case.
II. Key Legal Developments
The Court’s decision in AGS Company establishes three critical legal precedents that favor importers, provided they have active litigation pending:
1. Government Concession and Judicial Estoppel In opposing the injunction, the United States Government conceded that if the IEEPA tariffs are ultimately held unlawful, it “will not oppose the Court’s authority to order reliquidation” and will “refund any IEEPA duties found to have been unlawfully collected.”
The Court held that the Government is bound by this representation under the doctrine of judicial estoppel. This legally bars the Government from adopting a contrary position in the future—specifically, it cannot claim that the finality of liquidation precludes a refund.
2. Exclusive Remedy via Federal Litigation The Court reaffirmed that for constitutional challenges to Presidential Executive Orders (such as IEEPA tariffs), filing an administrative protest with CBP is “futile” and legally ineffective. The only valid mechanism for relief is to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i).
3. Liquidation is No Longer a Bar to Recovery Historically, once an entry was liquidated by CBP, refund rights were often extinguished. However, this ruling clarifies that where § 1581(i) jurisdiction has properly attached (i.e., a lawsuit has been filed), the finality of liquidation under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 does not apply. The Court retains the statutory authority to order reliquidation and restitution.
III. Strategic Analysis: Why Immediate Action is Mandatory
While the ruling is favorable, interested parties must recognize that government concessions and judicial protection extend strictly to active litigants.
1. Standing is a Prerequisite for Refunds The Government’s commitment to issue refunds applies to plaintiffs challenging the tariffs. If the interested parties remain passive and fails to file a complaint, they are not a party to the litigation. Should the two-year Statute of Limitations expire, the Government may lawfully deny their refund claims even if other importers succeed on the merits.
2. Risks of a Passive Strategy The Court’s power to order a refund derives solely from 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) jurisdiction. This jurisdiction is not automatic; it is established only upon the filing of a summons and complaint. Without an active docket number, the Court lacks jurisdiction over interested parties’ specific entries, rendering the “judicial estoppel” protection inapplicable to them.
3. Cost-Benefit Analysis The litigation risk profile has shifted significantly. With the procedural hurdle regarding liquidation resolved, the primary remaining risk is the merits of the underlying test case (V.O.S. Selections). The downside is limited to legal fees, while the potential upside is a 100% recovery of duties paid plus statutory interest. This represents a high-value, low-risk contingent asset.
IV. Recommendation
In light of the foregoing, we advise the following immediate actions:
- Authorize Litigation: Engage specialized international trade counsel to file a Summons and Complaint in the U.S. Court of International Trade.
- Preserve Evidence: Aggregate all Entry Summaries (CBP Form 7501) and proof of payment for entries subject to IEEPA tariffs to quantify the potential claim.
- Monitor Merits Case: Monitor V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, as its final disposition will determine the ultimate illegality of the tariffs.
If You Have Any Question,
Feel Free to Contact us
Disclaimer
This blog post is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The legal issues discussed involve evolving case law and fact-specific considerations that may differ materially depending on an interested party’s circumstances, entry history, and procedural posture. Reading this post does not create an attorney–client relationship. Importers should consult qualified counsel to obtain advice tailored to their specific situation before taking or refraining from any action.