CIT Refund Litigation Begins in Earnest: VOS Files for Immediate Relief, Nissan Joins the Fight

The Litigation Has Arrived

The waiting is over. On February 24, hours after the Federal Circuit's mandates formally returned the case to the Court of International Trade, VOS Selections moved for permanent injunctive relief — asking CIT to order refunds with interest to all importers who challenged IEEPA tariffs, not just the named plaintiffs in the original case.

The filing invokes the United States v. U.S. Shoe Corp. precedent, in which CIT served as the adjudicator for a class-wide remedy after the Federal Circuit invalidated a customs user fee. In that case, CIT administered refunds to all affected parties through a “test case” framework. VOS's counsel, led by Neal Katyal at Milbank, is asking CIT to do the same here.

The message is clear: this is not going to be a one-plaintiff-at-a-time process.

Nissan Signals the Corporate Wave

Last week, Nissan North America filed suit at CIT seeking IEEPA tariff refunds on its vehicle and parts imports. The filing is significant not because of its legal novelty — the constitutional question is settled — but because of what it signals.

Until now, the refund litigation has been led primarily by smaller importers (wine distributors, toy companies, small retailers) and trade associations. Nissan's entry marks the moment when Fortune 500 companies with tens of millions in tariff exposure begin filing directly at CIT rather than waiting for an administrative remedy from CBP.

Expect more. Auto manufacturers, electronics importers, and major retailers are all working with trade counsel to file before the statute of limitations creates any risk. The 2,000+ estimate of cases backlogged at CIT is likely to grow significantly in the next 90 days.

The AGS Co. Ruling: Why Liquidated Entries Are Still in Play

One question that kept many importers on the sidelines in late 2025 was whether refunds were available on liquidated entries — customs entries that CBP has already finalized and closed out.

That question was answered on December 15, 2025, when CIT ruled in AGS Co. that it has authority to order reliquidation of entries even after final liquidation by CBP. The ruling confirmed that CIT can reach back and order refunds on older entries, giving importers who paid IEEPA tariffs in 2025 a viable path to recovery.

This ruling is now central to the litigation strategy. VOS's motion for broad relief explicitly relies on CIT's reliquidation authority to argue that the court can order comprehensive refunds across all affected entry dates.

What DOJ Will Do Next

The government is not going to simply write checks. Here's what to expect:

• • Opposition to broad relief. DOJ will argue that VOS's “test case” theory doesn't apply here — that each importer must prove its own damages individually, which would slow the process dramatically.
• • Procedural objections. Expect motions arguing that CIT lacks jurisdiction over non-party importers, that the mandate doesn't authorize class-wide relief, or that interest calculations are disputed.
• • Appropriations arguments. DOJ may argue that CIT cannot order refunds without a congressional appropriation, citing the Judgment Fund limitations for claims exceeding certain thresholds.
• • Appeals on individual issues. Even if the broad framework is established, DOJ will likely appeal specific determinations on interest rates, covered entry dates, and eligible importers.

None of this changes the ultimate outcome — the Supreme Court has ruled, and the money is owed. But it affects the timeline. Importers should plan for a process measured in quarters, not weeks.

The Three-Track Reality

Right now, there are three parallel tracks for IEEPA tariff recovery:

Track 1: CIT litigation (fastest). Importers with pending CIT cases are first in line. If VOS's motion succeeds, CIT could establish a refund framework within months. This is where the action is.

Track 2: CBP administrative protests (uncertain). CBP has not issued guidance on how it will process IEEPA refund protests. Some trade counsel expect CBP to wait for CIT to establish the framework before acting. Others believe CBP will begin processing protests independently. Do not rely on this track alone.

Track 3: Congressional action (wildcard). Senate Democrats have introduced legislation (the REFUND Act) requiring CBP to process refunds within 180 days. The bill faces long odds in the current Congress but creates political pressure on CBP to act.

What Importers Must Do This Week

1. Confirm your protests are filed and pending. If you relied on your customs broker to file protests, verify they were accepted by CBP. Unfiled or rejected protests leave you with no administrative remedy.
2. Talk to trade counsel about CIT filing. Even if you have pending protests, a parallel CIT claim ensures you're covered if VOS establishes a broad refund framework. Many trade law firms are offering contingency-fee arrangements.
3. Compile your entry data. Calculate your total IEEPA tariff exposure by entry date, HTS code, and amount. CIT will eventually require this for refund processing. Start now.
4. Watch for CIT administrative orders. CIT will likely issue procedural orders in the coming weeks establishing a framework for refund claims. These orders may set deadlines. Subscribe to CIT's electronic filing system or check back here — we'll cover every development.

Timeline Outlook

Based on the current pace of litigation and historical CIT proceedings:

• • March–April 2026: CIT issues procedural orders, DOJ files opposition to VOS motion, initial hearings scheduled.
• • Q2 2026: CIT rules on the “test case” framework. If approved, a refund administration process is established.
• • Q3–Q4 2026: First refund payments to importers with clean claims. Interest accrual continues for all others.
• • 2027+: Tail-end claims, disputed entries, and appeals resolved.

The importers who filed early and maintained clean records will be paid first. The ones who waited will be paid last. The math is simple.