Executive summary

In AGS Company Automotive Solutions, et al. v. US Customs and Border Protection (decided 15 December 2025), a panel of the United States (US) Court of International Trade (CIT) denied a preliminary injunction seeking to halt liquidation (or finalization) of entries subject to International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs

Importers had filed motions seeking to suspend liquidation of entries subject to IEEPA tariffs while the legality of those tariffs is being litigated. The case proceeds in parallel to V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, a challenge to the executive orders imposing IEEPA tariffs that has been argued at the Supreme Court (oral argument held 5 November 2025). (For background, see EY Global Tax Alerts, US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in tariff case in early November 2025; opening briefs due soon, dated 10 September 2025, and Court of International Trade rules tariffs under International Emergency Economic Powers Act unlawful; appeals court temporarily reinstates tariffs as case proceeds, dated 30 May 2025.)

The plaintiffs argued that once entries are liquidated, they risk losing access to refunds. The Government countered that, if the IEEPA tariffs are ultimately held unlawful, the court has authority to order reliquidation and issue refunds with interest — and the Government would not oppose such relief. The CIT agreed and denied the preliminary injunction.

Key points from the opinion

The CIT concluded that it has explicit authority to order reliquidation and refunds of IEEPA tariffs in constitutional challenges brought under the residual jurisdiction provision 28 U.S.C. Section 1581(i), even after entries have been liquidated. On that basis, the court declined to issue injunctive relief, finding no irreparable harm would result because the Government has taken an unequivocal position that it will not oppose court-ordered reliquidation and refunds with interest if the tariffs are ultimately ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court. The CIT emphasized that filing post-liquidation protests is futile in this context because US Customs and Border Control (CBP) acts in a ministerial capacity collecting duties and cannot decide constitutional questions. Further, the CIT noted that judicial estoppel would prevent the Government from later taking a contrary position after its repeated representations regarding the availability of reliquidation and refunds.

What this means for businesses

Based on the CIT decision, if the Supreme Court invalidates the IEEPA tariffs, refunds should be available through court-ordered reliquidation, even for liquidated entries, reducing the need to file protests solely to preserve rights.

Companies that have paid IEEPA tariffs should prepare now by compiling complete entry records and trade data to substantiate potential refund claims, while closely monitoring developments in the Supreme Court case and any directions from CBP or the CIT regarding the refund mechanism. It remains uncertain whether, if the Supreme Court rules the IEEPA tariffs are unlawful, CBP will establish an administrative refund process or businesses will need to seek judicial orders, so planning for both pathways and assessing cash flow, accounting and timing implications is advisable.

Actions to take now

Affected entities should consider the following actions:

• Identify and quantify exposure by mapping entries and duty payments that included IEEPA tariffs; reconcile with broker statements and internal systems.
• Maintain complete entry packages, payment records and supporting documentation to substantiate refund claims.
• Monitor developments in V.O.S. Selections and any subsequent directives from CBP or the CIT regarding refund mechanisms.
• Prepare for either an administrative refund process or the need to seek court orders, depending on post-decision guidance.

The schedule for any potential refund process will depend on the timing and scope of the Supreme Court's decision and subsequent implementation steps. The Supreme Court is currently on its holiday recess, and we do not expect a decision until after 9 January 2026.

EY member firms do not practice law where not permitted by local law or regulation. Ernst & Young LLP (US) does not practice law or offer legal advice.