Government lawyers have challenged a decision by a Court of International Trade judge who ordered U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) to refund tariffs deemed illegal in February to all affected companies. This includes those businesses that did not file a lawsuit in trade court.
An appeal was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The government submitted its opening brief, citing a Supreme Court case that limited universal injunctions. This means rulings apply only to specific parties involved and not universally.
Judge Richard Eaton, handling the tariff lawsuits, believes these limits on universal injunctions do not apply in this situation. However, the government disagrees. It argues that the Court of International Trade’s ruling requiring refunds for all importers, even those not involved in the lawsuit, contradicts previous legal decisions that restrict universal injunctions.
Most tariff refunds have been processed, with CBP certifying $100 billion in refunds. The debate centers on companies whose finalized tariff entries passed through customs. A Congressional rule prevents CBP from reprocessing tariffs where no administrative refund process is available. Companies still have the option to file lawsuits for refunds, as highlighted in the government’s argument.
Barry Appleton, a law professor at New York Law School, contends that the government’s legal stance appears stronger. However, he notes that smaller businesses may face difficulties. He argues it is unfair for a business to be required to sue for refunds unknowingly and within an unfamiliar deadline. He believes that refunding an unlawful tariff should not depend on a company’s ability to litigate.