CIT: Trump administration is judicially estopped from arguing that it cannot refund illegally collected tariffs.
Every delay has consequences.
In a December 2025 opinion in AGS Company Automotive Solutions v. United States, the Court of International Trade ruled that the government can't back away from its promise to refund IEEPA duties if the Supreme Court strikes them down. What's the likelihood the Court will intervene to save Donald Trump from his own lawyers? Pretty low, in my opinion.
[A]s the Government notes in its response to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction here, it “[has] made very clear—both in this case and in related cases—that [it] will not object to the [c]ourt ordering reliquidation of plaintiffs’ entries subject to the challenged IEEPA duties if such duties are found to be unlawful.” Def.’s Resp. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for a Prelim. Inj. at 3, Dec. 11, 2025, ECF No. 25 (“Gov’t Resp.”); see also id. at 3–4 (citing Def.’s Resp. in Opp’n to Mot. for Prelim. Inj. & Summ. J. at 42, V.O.S. Selections, No. 25-066, ECF No. 32, Apr. 29, 2025 (“[E]ven if future entries are liquidated, defendants do not intend to oppose the [c]ourt’s authority to order reliquidation . . . . Such reliquidation would result in a refund of all duties determined to be unlawfully assessed, with interest.”); Joint Stipulation Regarding Reliquidation ၁ 2, Princess Awesome, LLC v. U.S. Customs and Border Prot., No. 25-078 (Ct. Int’l Trade filed Apr. 24, 2025), ECF No. 17, May 23, 2025 (Defendants “will not oppose the [c]ourt’s authority to order reliquidation of entries of merchandise subject to the challenged IEEPA duties and that they will refund any IEEPA duties found to have been unlawfully collected, after a final and unappealable decision has been issued finding the duties to have been unlawfully collected and ordering defendants to refund the duties.”)).1
The Government has taken the same position in other cases involving IEEPA tariffs. See, e.g., Defs.-Appellants’ Mot. for an Emergency Stay Pending Appeal & an Immediate Admin. Stay at 25, V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, Appeal No. 25-1812 (Fed. Cir. filed May 28, 2025), May 29, 2025, ECF No. 6 (“If tariffs imposed on plaintiffs during these appeals are ultimately held unlawful, then the government will issue refunds to plaintiffs, including any post-judgment interest that accrues.”); Defs.’ Mot. for a Stay of Prelim. Inj. Pending Appeal at 13, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 25-cv-01248 (D.D.C. filed Apr. 22, 2025), June 2, 2025, ECF No. 41 (“For any plaintiff who is an importer, even if a stay is entered and defendants do not prevail on appeal, plaintiffs will assuredly receive payment on their refund with interest. ‘[T]here is virtually no risk’ to any importer that they ‘would not be made whole’ should they prevail on appeal. The most ‘harm’ that could incur would be a delay in collecting on deposits. This harm is, by definition, not irreparable. Plaintiffs will not lose their entitlement to a refund, plus interest, if the preliminary injunction is stayed, and they are guaranteed payment by defendants should the [c]ourt’s decision be upheld. And defendants do not oppose the reliquidation of any entries of goods subject to IEEPA duties paid by plaintiffs that are ultimately found to be unlawful after appeal.” (first …
Every delay has consequences.
In a December 2025 opinion in AGS Company Automotive Solutions v. United States, the Court of International Trade ruled that the government can't back away from its promise to refund IEEPA duties if the Supreme Court strikes them down. What's the likelihood the Court will intervene to save Donald Trump from his own lawyers? Pretty low, in my opinion.
[A]s the Government notes in its response to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction here, it “[has] made very clear—both in this case and in related cases—that [it] will not object to the [c]ourt ordering reliquidation of plaintiffs’ entries subject to the challenged IEEPA duties if such duties are found to be unlawful.” Def.’s Resp. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for a Prelim. Inj. at 3, Dec. 11, 2025, ECF No. 25 (“Gov’t Resp.”); see also id. at 3–4 (citing Def.’s Resp. in Opp’n to Mot. for Prelim. Inj. & Summ. J. at 42, V.O.S. Selections, No. 25-066, ECF No. 32, Apr. 29, 2025 (“[E]ven if future entries are liquidated, defendants do not intend to oppose the [c]ourt’s authority to order reliquidation . . . . Such reliquidation would result in a refund of all duties determined to be unlawfully assessed, with interest.”); Joint Stipulation Regarding Reliquidation ၁ 2, Princess Awesome, LLC v. U.S. Customs and Border Prot., No. 25-078 (Ct. Int’l Trade filed Apr. 24, 2025), ECF No. 17, May 23, 2025 (Defendants “will not oppose the [c]ourt’s authority to order reliquidation of entries of merchandise subject to the challenged IEEPA duties and that they will refund any IEEPA duties found to have been unlawfully collected, after a final and unappealable decision has been issued finding the duties to have been unlawfully collected and ordering defendants to refund the duties.”)).1
The Government has taken the same position in other cases involving IEEPA tariffs. See, e.g., Defs.-Appellants’ Mot. for an Emergency Stay Pending Appeal & an Immediate Admin. Stay at 25, V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, Appeal No. 25-1812 (Fed. Cir. filed May 28, 2025), May 29, 2025, ECF No. 6 (“If tariffs imposed on plaintiffs during these appeals are ultimately held unlawful, then the government will issue refunds to plaintiffs, including any post-judgment interest that accrues.”); Defs.’ Mot. for a Stay of Prelim. Inj. Pending Appeal at 13, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 25-cv-01248 (D.D.C. filed Apr. 22, 2025), June 2, 2025, ECF No. 41 (“For any plaintiff who is an importer, even if a stay is entered and defendants do not prevail on appeal, plaintiffs will assuredly receive payment on their refund with interest. ‘[T]here is virtually no risk’ to any importer that they ‘would not be made whole’ should they prevail on appeal. The most ‘harm’ that could incur would be a delay in collecting on deposits. This harm is, by definition, not irreparable. Plaintiffs will not lose their entitlement to a refund, plus interest, if the preliminary injunction is stayed, and they are guaranteed payment by defendants should the [c]ourt’s decision be upheld. And defendants do not oppose the reliquidation of any entries of goods subject to IEEPA duties paid by plaintiffs that are ultimately found to be unlawful after appeal.” (first …
CIT: Trump administration is judicially estopped from arguing that it cannot refund illegally collected tariffs.
Every delay has consequences.
In a December 2025 opinion in AGS Company Automotive Solutions v. United States, the Court of International Trade ruled that the government can't back away from its promise to refund IEEPA duties if the Supreme Court strikes them down. What's the likelihood the Court will intervene to save Donald Trump from his own lawyers? Pretty low, in my opinion.
[A]s the Government notes in its response to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction here, it “[has] made very clear—both in this case and in related cases—that [it] will not object to the [c]ourt ordering reliquidation of plaintiffs’ entries subject to the challenged IEEPA duties if such duties are found to be unlawful.” Def.’s Resp. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for a Prelim. Inj. at 3, Dec. 11, 2025, ECF No. 25 (“Gov’t Resp.”); see also id. at 3–4 (citing Def.’s Resp. in Opp’n to Mot. for Prelim. Inj. & Summ. J. at 42, V.O.S. Selections, No. 25-066, ECF No. 32, Apr. 29, 2025 (“[E]ven if future entries are liquidated, defendants do not intend to oppose the [c]ourt’s authority to order reliquidation . . . . Such reliquidation would result in a refund of all duties determined to be unlawfully assessed, with interest.”); Joint Stipulation Regarding Reliquidation ၁ 2, Princess Awesome, LLC v. U.S. Customs and Border Prot., No. 25-078 (Ct. Int’l Trade filed Apr. 24, 2025), ECF No. 17, May 23, 2025 (Defendants “will not oppose the [c]ourt’s authority to order reliquidation of entries of merchandise subject to the challenged IEEPA duties and that they will refund any IEEPA duties found to have been unlawfully collected, after a final and unappealable decision has been issued finding the duties to have been unlawfully collected and ordering defendants to refund the duties.”)).1
The Government has taken the same position in other cases involving IEEPA tariffs. See, e.g., Defs.-Appellants’ Mot. for an Emergency Stay Pending Appeal & an Immediate Admin. Stay at 25, V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, Appeal No. 25-1812 (Fed. Cir. filed May 28, 2025), May 29, 2025, ECF No. 6 (“If tariffs imposed on plaintiffs during these appeals are ultimately held unlawful, then the government will issue refunds to plaintiffs, including any post-judgment interest that accrues.”); Defs.’ Mot. for a Stay of Prelim. Inj. Pending Appeal at 13, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 25-cv-01248 (D.D.C. filed Apr. 22, 2025), June 2, 2025, ECF No. 41 (“For any plaintiff who is an importer, even if a stay is entered and defendants do not prevail on appeal, plaintiffs will assuredly receive payment on their refund with interest. ‘[T]here is virtually no risk’ to any importer that they ‘would not be made whole’ should they prevail on appeal. The most ‘harm’ that could incur would be a delay in collecting on deposits. This harm is, by definition, not irreparable. Plaintiffs will not lose their entitlement to a refund, plus interest, if the preliminary injunction is stayed, and they are guaranteed payment by defendants should the [c]ourt’s decision be upheld. And defendants do not oppose the reliquidation of any entries of goods subject to IEEPA duties paid by plaintiffs that are ultimately found to be unlawful after appeal.” (first …
0 Comments
0 Shares
29 Views
0 Reviews
