U.S. federal trade judge orders Trump administration: Stop calculating IEEPA tariffs on importers.

```

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Trump's emergency tariffs illegal, the refund process is accelerating at the judicial level.

On Wednesday, March 4, U.S. Court of International Trade Judge Richard Eaton ordered U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to immediately stop including the tariffs imposed by Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in importers’ customs clearance documents. He also questioned why the government continues to do so when the Supreme Court has already ruled these tariffs illegal.

Judge Eaton stated that the relevant tariffs would be recalculated, and confirmed that thousands of ongoing refund lawsuits in the Trade Court are now designated for unified adjudication.

During the hearing, Eaton made clear that "the law is settled," the refund process can move "quite smoothly," and emphasized that "every penny of IEEPA tariffs must be refunded."

He dismissed the Department of Justice's request for a stay and required the DOJ to further clarify the specific arrangement for refunds by this Friday.

WallstreetCN mentioned that last month the U.S. Supreme Court ruled by a vote of 6 to 3 that Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose so-called "reciprocal tariffs" on imports was illegal.

After the ruling, there was significant uncertainty in the market about when and how importers would receive refunds. According to previous disclosures by the U.S. government in court filings, hundreds of thousands of importers have paid the disputed tariffs.

Tariff liquidation procedure becomes core dispute

Wednesday's hearing and order originated from Atmus Filtration, a U.S. filter manufacturer, seeking around $11 million in IEEPA refunds.

However, the case quickly drew broad attention because it touched on the key issue of how to process tariff documents after the Supreme Court ruling.

The focus of the dispute centers on the "liquidation" procedure of CBP. Liquidation refers to the formal accounting and confirmation of estimated taxes previously paid by importers.

During the hearing, DOJ attorney Claudia Burke admitted that CBP is still including IEEPA tariffs in the liquidation procedure, which complicates the refund process for relevant importers.

During the hearing, there was a clear disagreement between Richard Eaton and the DOJ. The judge clearly stated:

Every penny of IEEPA tariffs must be refunded. The Supreme Court has already told you what your position is. Your position is to refund that money.

Claudia Burke countered that the refund process will take time because government agencies affected by the Supreme Court decision haven't yet established a final position on how to handle the matter.

She also said the government’s position is not that "every importer will receive a refund," as some importers may still need to file separate claims in the Trade Court.

Richard Eaton dismissed the DOJ’s request to stay execution of his order, and scheduled the next hearing for Friday morning, when the DOJ must give a more detailed explanation about the specifics of the refund process.

Refund volume is large, interest will be paid together

Currently, over 2,000 refund lawsuits await trial in the U.S. Trade Court, most of which were filed after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments last November.

Pratik Shah, lead attorney for Learning Resources, which prevailed at the Supreme Court, said:

This order confirms what should have been obvious after the Supreme Court decision—all those who paid IEEPA tariffs have the right to receive refunds.

Additionally, earlier Wednesday, the U.S. government confirmed in a written document to Richard Eaton that it will pay interest on any funds to be refunded.

Risk warning and disclaimerThe market has risks; investment needs caution. This article does not constitute individual investment advice, nor does it consider the specific investment goals, financial circumstances, or needs of individual users. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article suit their specific situations. Investing based on this is at your own risk. ```