Will CAPE Phase 3 Refund Finally Liquidated IEEPA Entries?

If you got pulled into IEEPA tariffs in 2025 and your customs broker recently told you the entries have been “finally liquidated” or are “in suspended liquidation,” you have probably already discovered that CAPE Phase 1 will not refund you. The April 28 CIT order made this explicit: CBP confirmed that finally liquidated entries and certain suspended entries are excluded from Phase 1, and Phase 3 programming is now targeted for late July 2026.

That does not mean payment is automatic. The government continues to dispute whether CBP can refund finally liquidated entries for importers that have not filed their own CIT actions. This post explains the Phase 3 timeline, the legal dispute, and when CIT litigation remains the realistic preservation path.

What “Finally Liquidated” Actually Means

In customs terminology, an entry goes through a sequence: filed, accepted, liquidated, and finally liquidated. Liquidation is when CBP closes the books on the duty calculation for that entry. By default it happens automatically about 314 days after acceptance. Once liquidation happens, importers have a 180-day protest window under 19 USC 1514 to challenge the duty amount.

If no protest is filed in that window, the entry becomes finally liquidated. That status is more than just a label. It means CBP treats the duty calculation as administratively final, the entry is closed in CBP’s accounting system, and the agency has no built-in mechanism to reopen it for refund.

For IEEPA-period entries — between February 1, 2025 and February 24, 2026 — this matters because the IEEPA tariffs were not struck down until the Supreme Court ruled in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump on February 20, 2026. By that date, many entries from early 2025 had already liquidated and the protest window had already expired. Those entries are now finally liquidated, and CAPE Phase 1 cannot reach them.

What “Suspended Liquidation” Means

Suspended liquidation is the opposite problem. The entry is not yet liquidated because CBP has paused the liquidation clock. Common reasons:

• The merchandise is subject to a pending antidumping or countervailing duty proceeding at the Department of Commerce
• CBP has an open investigation into the entry (valuation, classification, or origin questions)
• The entry is part of a court-ordered suspension related to other litigation
• The merchandise is held under a pending exclusion order from another agency

Because CAPE Phase 1 needs entries that can be liquidated or reliquidated through the normal weekly cycle, and suspended entries cannot, CBP excluded them from Phase 1 procedurally. The April 28 CIT order specifically called out “certain suspended entries” as outside Phase 1 scope.

For IEEPA exposure on suspended entries, the practical question is: when will the suspension lift, and will the entry then fall within a future CAPE phase window? Often the answer is uncertain enough that waiting passively is the wrong move.

Why CIT Is the Real Refund Path

The Court of International Trade has subject matter jurisdiction over IEEPA refund claims under 28 USC 1581(i) — the residual jurisdiction provision. This is the same statutory basis that produced the Learning Resources and Genova Pipe decisions that struck down the IEEPA tariffs in the first place.

CIT jurisdiction has two important features that distinguish it from CBP protests:

1. No 180-day liquidation deadline. The statute of limitations for 1581(i) actions is generally two years from when the cause of action accrues. For many importers, the Learning Resources ruling on February 20, 2026 is the accrual event, which means the clock is still running well into 2028.
2. CBP cannot dispose of the claim administratively. Unlike a protest, which CBP decides on, a CIT case is decided by Article III judges. CBP’s determination that an entry is “finally liquidated” does not bind CIT.

The downside is cost and timing. CIT cases involve filing fees, attorney fees, and potentially years of litigation. They make economic sense when IEEPA exposure on the affected entries justifies the spend.

Who Should Be Talking to CIT Counsel Now

Two profiles where CIT consultation is high priority:

Profile 1: Large IEEPA exposure, finally liquidated entries. If you imported significant volume from China, Canada, Mexico, or Venezuela-oil countries between February and roughly August 2025, your earliest entries are likely finally liquidated by now. If your aggregate IEEPA duty payment on those finally liquidated entries is in the high six figures or above, the CIT math typically works.

Profile 2: Suspended entries with no clear suspension end date. If you have entries on AD/CVD suspension that may not lift for years, waiting for CAPE Phase 2 is functionally waiting indefinitely. CIT lets you preserve the IEEPA refund claim without depending on when the AD/CVD case resolves.

For both profiles, the first step is a counsel review of your actual liquidation status. Many importers think their entries are “still open” but are wrong because of how CBP’s automated liquidation works.

What to Document Before Calling Counsel

Pull these from ACE before the conversation:

• Entry summary report covering February 2025 through August 2025 (the window most likely to contain finally liquidated entries)
• Liquidation status indicator for each entry
• IEEPA Chapter 99 duty lines on each entry (HTS 9903.01.25 through 9903.01.70)
• For suspended entries: the suspension reason code and any related CBP or Commerce case numbers
• Aggregate IEEPA duty paid by entry status (open, liquidated within 80 days, finally liquidated, suspended)

Our pre-counsel documentation checklist covers the standard package; for finally liquidated and suspended entries, add the liquidation-status detail above.

Don’t Skip the Protest Backstop on Anything Still Open

Even while you are evaluating CIT for finally liquidated entries, file protective protests under 19 USC 1514 on every entry that is still within the 180-day window from liquidation. Protest filing is inexpensive insurance that prevents your other entries from also becoming finally liquidated and joining the CIT-only category. Our protest filing guide walks through the mechanics, and the CAPE-vs-protest-vs-CIT decision flow shows how the three paths fit together.

How CIT Cases Have Played Out So Far

The IEEPA refund litigation track record is short but favorable to importers:

• Genova Pipe v. Lutnick and Noem (CIT, May 28, 2025) — first major ruling that IEEPA tariffs exceeded statutory authority
• Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (Supreme Court, February 20, 2026, 6-3) — definitive ruling that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs
• Nintendo of America Inc. v. U.S. Department of the Treasury (filed March 2026) — refund recovery action currently pending

The legal theory is settled. What is being litigated now is the procedural question of which importers can recover and through what mechanism. Importers who file at CIT now are in the early wave of refund-recovery cases, which generally moves faster than later waves.

Update — June 7, 2026: DOJ Appeal Reinforces the CIT-First Posture

The May 27 show-cause order briefly raised the odds that CBP might be pushed into a broader administrative refund path for finally liquidated entries. The June appeal posture cuts the other way. Davis Wright Tremaine reports that DOJ appealed the CIT refund order and sought a stay of the universal refund requirement, while Thompson Hine reports the administration appealed the CIT’s IEEPA tariff refund order.

For finally liquidated entries, the practical reading is conservative:

• Do not assume Phase 2 will reopen final liquidations. The appeal is aimed at limiting or pausing universal refund relief while the Federal Circuit reviews the CIT order.
• Plaintiff status matters more. DWT summarizes the government’s position as distinguishing between importers that filed timely lawsuits and importers that have not sued.
• Protests still matter where available. If a related entry is liquidated but still inside the 180-day window, a protective protest remains the lower-cost preservation step.
• CIT review should happen before waiting. If the exposure is material and the protest window is closed, ask counsel whether a 28 USC 1581(i) complaint is still available for your entry set.

This update does not mean every finally liquidated entry needs litigation. It does mean “wait for CAPE Phase 2” is now a weaker default for high-value claims.

Update — June 18, 2026: Phase 3 Technology Targeted for Late July

• At the June 9 CIT hearing, CBP said Phase 3 programming for finally liquidated entries is expected to be ready in late July 2026. Source: Thompson Hine, Holland & Knight, Husch Blackwell, and Green Worldwide summaries of the hearing.
• CBP indicated that importer-of-record identifiers will be required to route Phase 3 refunds and reduce payment errors.
• The government’s legal position remains that finally liquidated refunds for non-litigants require importer-specific court authority. The Federal Circuit appeal has not resolved that issue.
• A working system therefore does not guarantee universal payment. Importers with material exposure should ask counsel whether a CIT action is appropriate and should continue filing protective protests for related entries still inside the 180-day window.

What to Watch Going Forward

The next checkpoints are the June 25 status conference, the government’s July 1 progress report, the July 9 settlement conference, and CBP’s targeted late-July Phase 3 technical deployment.

Watch our CSMS message index and the CAPE Update Tracker on the home page for new official checkpoints.

If you have material IEEPA exposure on finally liquidated or suspended entries, request a free assessment and we will connect you with vetted trade counsel who handles CIT 1581(i) refund litigation specifically.