Recent Posts

PSC vs. Protest: Which Filing Route Applies to Your IEEPA Entries

The U.S. Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026, decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump struck down President Trump’s tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) asunlawful , invalidating those tariffs retroactively. This landmark ruling has set off a scramble for U.S. importers to recover tariffs paid on entries between February 4, 2025, and February 24, 2026, a period when IEEPA duties were collected on billions of dollars of merchandise. The Supreme Court remanded the question of refunds to lower courts, leaving importers with uncertainty about how to reclaim these unlawful duties. Importers are now evaluating which existing customs mechanisms might allow recovery of these IEEPA tariffs, specifically, whether a Post Summary Correction (PSC) or a Section 514 protest is the appropriate filing route for their affected entries.

How Customs Entries Work

When merchandise enters the United States, an entry summary is filed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that reports the importer, value, classification, and other details of the goods. CBP then liquidates the entry, meaning it finalizes the assessment of duties, taxes, and fees owed https://www.buchalter.com/insights/cit-orders-cbp-to-remove-ieepa-tariffs-from-unliquidated-entries-pressure-builds-on-cbp-to-roll-out-a-refund-procedure/. Typically, CBP has one year to liquidate an entry (or the entry is liquidated by operation of law), though it can extend liquidation up to four years under certain circumstances. In practice, most routine entries are liquidated within 8–11 months of entry. The liquidation date is critical because it determines deadlines for challenging CBP decisions.

Customs disputes are generally handled on a per-entry basis. Each entry’s liquidation is a discrete event, and if an importer disagrees with CBP’s determination (for example, on classification, valuation, or duty rate), that importer must raise the issue on that entry. This entry-level approach means that if an importer paid IEEPA tariffs on multiple entries, it will likely need to address each entry individually, even if the entries involve similar merchandise or the same importer. Importers often find this entry-by-entry approach challenging because their systems may not be organized at the entry level; critical data (such as which entries were assessed IEEPA duties) is sometimes scattered. Understanding the liquidation status of each relevant entry is, therefore, a first step for importers seeking to recover IEEPA duties.

What Is a Post Summary Correction (PSC)?

A Post Summary Correction (PSC) is a process by which an importer or broker can correct an entry summary after it has been filed but before the entry is liquidated. Under CBP’s automated systems, PSCs are submitted electronically through the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) platform. PSCs are intended for administrative corrections that should have been made at the time of filing (for example, correcting an HTSUS code, value, or quantity), essentially, to fix mistakes before the entry is finalized. If a PSC is approved, CBP will revise the entry summary and adjust duties accordingly. It is important to note that PSCs cannot be used on entries that have already been liquidated; once an entry is liquidated, other mechanisms like protests must be used to challenge the assessment.

From an importer’s perspective, PSCs are a pre-liquidation correction tool. They are useful for IEEPA-related entries because they allow the removal of IEEPA duties before the entry is finalized. Importers can submit a PSC to CBP, identifying the entry and requesting the removal of the IEEPA tariff line(s). If CBP approves the PSC, the entry summary will be corrected to remove the IEEPA duties, and the entry will liquidate without those unlawful charges.

In effect, a PSC is a straightforward way to recover IEEPA duties on entries that remain unliquidated at the time of filing. This is why many importers with unliquidated entries are focusing on submitting PSCs for those entries; it offers a quick administrative fix for IEEPA tariffs. However, PSCs are subject to certain time limits and conditions. Under current regulations, a PSC must be filed within 300 days of the entry date or no later than 15 days before the scheduled liquidation date, whichever is earlier. Entries liquidated by operation of law (without CBP approval) cannot be corrected via PSC.

Additionally, if an entry summary has already been liquidated or is under CBP review, the importer’s only option is to file a protest or seek relief in court. Therefore, importers must act promptly; if an entry is near its liquidation deadline, it may be too late to file a PSC. In summary, PSCs are a valuable tool for unliquidated entries, but they must be used before the entry is finalized and within the allowed time window.

What Is a Protest?

A protest under Section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 is the mechanism by which an importer can challenge a CBP decision after the entry has been liquidated. In practical terms, a protest is a formal written objection to CBP’s assessment of duties, taxes, or fees on an entry. Under 19 U.S.C. § 1514, the importer (or their broker or attorney) must file a protest within 180 days after the date of liquidation. This 180-day deadline is firm and cannot be extended, so importers must monitor liquidation dates and be prepared to file protests promptly. Protests are filed using CBP Form 19, which requests that CBP unliquidate the entry and re-assess duties without the protested amount. If CBP grants the protest in whole or in part, the entry will be reliquidated accordingly, and any overpaid duties will be refunded (including interest, in some cases). If CBP denies the protest, the importer has the option to escalate the dispute to the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) by filing a lawsuit within 180 days of CBP’s denial. The CIT will then review the case to determine if CBP’s decision was correct. In the context of IEEPA tariffs, a protest could be used to challenge the assessment of IEEPA duties on a liquidated entry, asserting that those duties are unlawful and should be removed. Importers who filed protests before the Supreme Court’s ruling on IEEPA may now have a stronger legal basis, as the Court’s decision has invalidated the underlying authority for those tariffs. However, protests are not a guaranteed path to recovery; CBP may still contest the protest, and the CIT process can be lengthy and uncertain.

It is worth noting that the Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources does not explicitly address how refunds should be processed, so CBP and the courts are developing the rules as they go. The CIT has indicated that, once the lawfulness of IEEPA tariffs is established, it has the authority to order CBP to reliquidate entries and issue refunds for unlawful duties. In one case, CIT Judge Richard Eaton issued an order requiring CBP to refund IEEPA duties on all affected entries, directing CBP to liquidate unliquidated entries without IEEPA duties and to reliquidate liquidated entries now without those duties. However, that order was stayed by the CIT on March 6, 2026, pending further developments. CBP has since proposed a new process to issue refunds through its ACE system within 45 days, but it has not yet been fully implemented. In the interim, importers are left to consider whether protests (or lawsuits) are the best way to assert their refund rights. It’s important to remember that a protest must be; importers cannot wait indefinitely for a refund process to be established, as they risk losing their legal right to challenge CBP’s decision. Therefore, if an entry has already liquidated, the clock is ticking, and importers should be prepared to file protests or take other action promptly.

Why Entry-Level Data Matters

Recovering IEEPA duties will depend on the liquidation status of each relevant entry and the timeliness of corrections. Many importers face a daunting challenge: entry-level data is often poorly organized, making it difficult to identify which entries were subject to IEEPA tariffs and whether they have been liquidated. Importers may have thousands of entries to review, and each entry’s status (liquidated or not, and when) is crucial. Without proper data, an importer might not know whether a PSC or a protest is the appropriate step for a given entry.

This lack of entry-level organization is a significant complication. Some companies are turning to advisory firms to help organize entry-level data and prepare documentation for their customs brokers or attorneys. These firms can assist in sifting through entry summary records, identifying which entries paid IEEPA duties, and determining each entry’s liquidation status. By having this information at hand, importers can develop a strategy: for unliquidated entries, focus on PSCs; for liquidated entries, prepare to file protests.

The importance of entry-level data cannot be overstated; it is the foundation of any recovery effort. Importers should also ensure that they have supporting documentation (such as commercial invoices, packing lists, and any duty calculations) for each entry, as CBP may require evidence to support a refund claim.

Additional Complications

Beyond the differences between PSCs and protests, importers face several other complications when seeking refunds for IEEPA tariffs. One such issue is Importer of Record (IOR) rights. The IOR is the party listed on the customs entry responsible for paying duties and is generally the one who must file protests or PSCs. If an importer outsourced the payment of duties or relied on a distributor to handle customs, it’s important to confirm which party actually has the right to recover the refund.

In some cases, a distributor or reseller may have paid duties but not be the IOR; only the IOR can file a protest or PSC so that those rights may lie elsewhere. Contractual arrangements can also complicate matters: if a contract with a supplier or distributor allocates tariff liability (e.g., “buyer pays duties”), it could affect how a refund is handled. For example, if a distributor paid IEEPA duties on behalf of the buyer, the buyer may not have filed a protest or PSC, and the distributor may not be entitled to recover the duties unless the contract provides otherwise. Importers should review their agreements to ensure they are asserting the correct party’s rights in recovering these duties. Another factor is varying entry timelines.

Entries can be filed on different dates and liquidated on different schedules. An importer might have some entries that liquidated a year ago and others that are still in the liquidation cycle. This means that for some entries, it’s already too late to file a PSC (because they were liquidated by operation of law or the deadline passed), while for others, a PSC could still be filed. Importers must assess each entry individually; some entries may be unliquidated and eligible for PSC, while others may be liquidated and require a protest. There is no one-size-fits-all approach; each entry must be evaluated based on its own status.

Additionally, CBP’s guidance is still evolving. As of now, there is no definitive process for refunds, and importers must follow whatever procedures CBP establishes. The CBP has indicated it will develop a new system to issue refunds electronically, but until that is in place, the rules of engagement are uncertain. Importers should also be aware that litigation is a possibility. If CBP refuses to issue refunds or if the process is unclear, some importers may file lawsuits in the CIT to compel refunds.

The CIT has already indicated it will address refund claims, and the Supreme Court’s decision has provided a strong legal basis for such claims. However, litigation is a lengthy and costly process, and it may not be necessary if CBP eventually implements an administrative refund mechanism. Still, importers should consider the possibility of litigation as a fallback if administrative remedies are not forthcoming in a timely manner.

Procedural Uncertainty

Perhaps the most significant complication is the procedural uncertainty surrounding IEEPA tariff refunds. The Supreme Court’s decision invalidated the tariffs, but it did not specify how refunds should be processed. As a result, CBP and the courts are determining the refund mechanism. The CIT has ordered CBP to issue refunds, but it has also paused enforcement of that order pending the development of a system to handle the enormous volume of refunds (over 53 million entries with $166 billion in duties). CBP has proposed a new system within 45 days that would allow importers to submit a list of IEEPA-duty entries via ACE and have those entries automatically reliquidated without the unlawful duties. If this system is implemented, it could streamline refunds and avoid the need for individual protests.

However, until the system is up and running, importers cannot assume that refunds will be automatically issued. They must continue to follow standard customs procedures for corrections and protests. There is also the question of whether CBP will issue refunds retroactively for all IEEPA tariffs or only for certain tariffs. The Supreme Court’s ruling struck down the IEEPA tariffs generally, but it is unclear if that means refunds are due for all tariffs collected under IEEPA or only for those specific tariffs at issue in the cases. For example, some importers paid additional tariffs on imports from Brazil and India under the IEEPA regime; the Supreme Court’s ruling might not cover those tariffs unless they were explicitly included. Importers should consult legal counsel to determine the scope of tariffs affected by the refund.

Additionally, the timing of refunds is uncertain. CBP has stated that the new system could be operational in about 45 days, but that is subject to court approval. Even after that, processing millions of refunds could take time. In the meantime, importers may have to wait for CBP to implement the system and for their entries to be reliquidated. During this waiting period, the 180-day protest deadlines for liquidated entries remain in effect; importers cannot afford to wait until a formal refund process is announced before taking action.

The bottom line is that procedural uncertainty is a key challenge. Importers must proceed with caution, keeping in mind that the path forward is not yet fully established. It’s possible that CBP may eventually provide guidance that simplifies the process (for instance, a general order to refund all IEEPA duties without requiring individual protests). However, until such guidance is issued, importers should plan for the worst-case scenario and follow the traditional customs procedures to protect their refund rights. In this evolving environment, staying informed and flexible is essential.

Practical Takeaway

For U.S. importers affected by the Supreme Court’s invalidation of IEEPA tariffs, the key message is to focus on understanding entry status and procedural rights rather than assuming that a refund process already exists. Importers should conduct a thorough review of their entries to determine which were subject to IEEPA duties and whether those entries are still unliquidated or have been liquidated.

For unliquidated entries, consider submitting PSCs to remove the IEEPA duties before they become final https://www.buchalter.com/insights/cit-orders-cbp-to-remove-ieepa-tariffs-from-unliquidated-entries-pressure-builds-on-cbp-to-roll-out-a-refund-procedure/. For liquidated entries, be prepared to file protests within the 180-day window after liquidation to challenge the unlawful duties. It is crucial to maintain accurate records and documentation for each entry, as CBP may require evidence to support a refund claim https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2026/03/court-of-international-trade-orders-nationwide-tariff-refunds.

Additionally, importers should be mindful of contractual obligations and ensure that the right party (Importer of Record) is asserting its refund rights. While the prospect of recovering IEEPA duties is appealing, it is important to avoid making any definitive assumptions; the legal and administrative landscape is still evolving.

Importers should continue to monitor CBP’s guidance and any developments in court, and be ready to adapt their strategy as needed. In a nutshell, the recovery of IEEPA tariffs will likely depend on importers taking proactive steps through established customs channels. By distinguishing between PSCs and protests, understanding entry-level data, and maneuvering the uncertainties, importers can position themselves to reclaim the duties paid under an unlawful tariff regime. This is a complex and time-sensitive endeavor, but with careful planning and compliance-focused action, importers can maximize their chances of a successful refund outcome.

Use the IEEPA Tariff Refund Calculator to see your exposure instantly: https://occams.ai/ieepa-tariff-refund-calculator/