New York — A US Customs and Border Protection official is scheduled to testify in federal court on Tuesday about the US government’s plans to refund billions of dollars paid by importers before the Supreme Court ruled that President Donald Trump illegally… Imposing certain definitions On goods from most Other countries.
International Trade Court Judge Richard Eaton said he wanted to hear details that would help him decide whether to order the government to speed up and expand its system for issuing tariff refunds. the The Justice Department later appealed An earlier order from Eaton made all companies that paid the now-defunct import taxes eligible for refunds plus interest.
The Justice Department argued in a court document that only companies that were parties to any of these agreements were more than… 2,500 lawsuits Those that challenged the tariffs had the legal right to demand a refund.
With the dispute now moving to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Tuesday’s hearing in New York may provide more clarity on the next stage of the refund process.
Eaton ordered Customs and Border Protection in March to create a system through which “All registered importers” It could apply for its share of the $166 billion that CBP estimates it collected before the Supreme Court struck down the global tariffs.
The agency launched the online system on April 20, saying it would first review applications from importers whose tax invoices have not been finalized.
Claims for refunds totaling $89.6 billion had been accepted for processing as of June 1, according to CBP, and the agency reported last month that it had so far directed the Treasury Department to issue $20.6 billion in refunds.
But the pace and scope of the operation became a contentious issue when Eaton ordered CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott to appear in court to discuss the agency’s timeline for complying with the judge’s “global” order. The Justice Department objected and asked if one of Scott’s deputies could attend the hearing instead.
When Eaton insisted on hearing directly from the agency’s head, Justice Department lawyers appealed that mandate and the judge’s broader ruling on eligibility for refunds. The Federal Circuit agreed Thursday to temporarily suspend the requirement for Scott to testify.
Eaton agreed to hear from Susan Thomas, the agency’s executive assistant commissioner for commerce.
The hearing is expected to focus on CBP’s ability and willingness to open up the refund process to businesses with tariff payments dating back further.
So far, the agency has limited applications to companies whose tax bills had not been finalized by the time the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs in late February or whose bills had been settled within the previous 80 days.
In a court announcement before the hearing, Thomas said CBP was developing a way to handle refunds related to older shipments but would not process cases beyond the 80-day period while Eaton’s order requiring all payers was on appeal.
“If the court order becomes final and requires clearing the entry of all importers, CBP intends to fully comply with the court’s final decision as quickly as possible,” she wrote.
This relates to the agency’s detailed and deadline-bound process for reviewing and clearing customs declarations on new imports.
When foreign goods enter the United States, importers must… Customs brokers He works on their behalf to estimate the amount of tariffs due and deposit an amount in the final invoice. CBP then has 314 days — and up to four years, if necessary — to review the declared goods, determine the actual amount owed, and either require more or less of the deposit.
Hence the taxable goods are pronounced as “liquidated”. Importers have 180 days to protest the CBP decision. Goods usually cannot be revalued after that point.
Eaton said he was holding a hearing on Tuesday “to ascertain whether it is the government’s policy to return all illegally collected tariffs either by complying with a court order, or by any other means.”
Lawyers for the five companies behind the lawsuit that issued the judge’s order said it would be unconstitutional for them to pay lower tariffs than other companies that also paid the invalid duties, which the Supreme Court held Trump improperly imposed by invoking the Emergency Powers Act to usurp Congress’ taxing authority.
The companies asked Eaton to certify their case as a class action on behalf of “tens of thousands of similarly situated potential importers.”
Megan Supino, a partner at the law firm Ice Miller, said she believes CBP will continue to build the technology needed to recover all tariffs, but “whether they open it up to non-litigants and importers who don’t have claims on their own behalf will remain an issue on appeal.”