This update covers three key developments this week: (1) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) filed its latest status update in Euro-Notions on April 14, 2025; (2) Judge Eaton thereafter issued another order; and (3) next steps / recommendations for importers.

1. CBP Status Update

As a reminder, since the Atmus Filtration case is now dismissed, Euro-Notions is the new IEEPA refund “lead case”. CBP filed another declaration on April 14, 2026, and outlined its latest progress in developing the CAPE portal within ACE to provide refunds for the IEEPA tariffs as ordered by the Court. CAPE consists of four components: (1) Claim Portal; (2) Mass Processing; (3) Review and Liquidation/Reliquidation; and (4) Refund. The key takeaways from CBP’s declaration are:

• CAPE and its Components. CBP has stated that it has completed the primary development of all four components of CAPE for Phase 1 and is currently testing the functionality of those components. In particular, CBP stated in its declaration that:
  • The Claim Portal component is 95% complete.
  • The Mass Processing component is 85% complete.
  • The Review and Liquidation/Reliquidation component is 90% complete.
  • The Refund component is 90% complete.

• Refunds. CBP reiterates that it will issue refunds to importers of record (or parties designated to receive such refunds pursuant to CBP Form 4811) and that such parties must enroll to receive refunds electronically.
  • According to CBP, over 56,000 importers of record (or designees) have taken the necessary steps to receive electronic refunds, and “refunds can be issued electronically for approximately 82% of entries with IEEPA duty payments and/or duty deposits.” CBP has collected “approximately $127 billion” in IEEPA duties and/or deposits that can be refunded electronically.

• Preliquidation Refunds. CBP “continues to consider options for pre-liquidation refunds for suspended entries subject to antidumping and/or countervailing duty . . . orders” because CBP would need to manually process refund claims for such entries, which would “dramatically increase{e} the workload and divert{} personnel from fully carrying out {CBP’s} commercial trade operations and trade enforcement mission.”

2. CIT Order of April 14, 2026

After CBP filed its declaration, the parties held a closed status conference, and CIT Judge Eaton issued another order confirming:

• CBP “is on track to launch Phase 1” of CAPE “on April 20, 2026” to refund “duties with interest” and cites instructions that CBP recently published regarding CAPE that the CIT will post on its website.
• CBP’s instructions “do not limit the use of CAPE to those claimants who have commenced an action in this Court.”
• CBP will utilize “any IEEPA cash deposits . . . to offset amounts owed with respect to other duties” and “identify{} entries for which an adjustment has been made.”

The CIT also confirmed that (1) CBP will provide refunds totaling “approximately $127 billion” if all those “who have registered for electronic refunds take advantage of CAPE for all their entries”; and (2) the CIT does “not anticipate” receiving any confidential filings from parties in Euro-Notions, meaning that Judge Eaton expects the record to be entirely public.

3. Next Steps

The next key date is that CBP has to submit another progress report by Noon ET on Tuesday, April 28, 2026. The CIT will again hold a closed conference with counsel at 2 p.m. ET on the same day. It is important to note that this progress report is slated to be filed after CAPE goes live based upon the current schedule. 

The latest CIT order does not change our prior guidance. We continue to recommend that importers who are eligible for IEEPA refunds closely review CBP’s guidance to the importing community to date, including the guide to preparing declarations, recent CSMS message, and answers to certain FAQs.

There are concerns in the various media outlets as to whether relief and refunds will be limited to plaintiffs who have filed complaints; however, that is not yet clear. While we are recommending the filing of complaints to secure client’s interests, the assessment of the merits of filing a complaint must be evaluated on a client specific basis.