As U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) continues processing refunds of tariffs unlawfully imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), one category of entries presents a particularly complicated problem: imports that are also subject to antidumping and countervailing duties (AD/CVD). 

For these importers, the timing of an IEEPA refund could affect more than when they get their money back. It could potentially affect the amount of antidumping duties they ultimately owe. 

David Craven, Of Counsel to Diaz Trade Law, represents Aditya Birla Chemicals USA Inc. and Pack Perfect Inc., and is challenging that problem before the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) in Aditya Birla Chemicals USA Inc. and Pack Perfect Inc. v. Trump, Court No. 26-00134. 

On July 28, Craven filed a Motion to Lift Stay and for Issuance of Order Clarifying Refunds, asking the CIT to address an emerging conflict between CBP’s IEEPA refund process and the Department of Commerce’s calculation of antidumping duties. 

At the heart of the case is a procedural catch-22: Commerce is treating IEEPA duties as a cost when calculating certain antidumping margins because the duties have not yet been refunded, while CBP’s current refund process may require the affected AD/CVD entries to liquidate before those refunds can be issued. 

Why Type 03 Entries Are Different 

Aditya Birla Chemicals and Pack Perfect have Type 03 consumption entries, meaning entries subject to antidumping and/or countervailing duties, on which IEEPA duties were also deposited. These entries do not fit neatly into the IEEPA refund process. 

CBP launched its Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) system in April to administer IEEPA refunds. But when Craven filed the motion, CAPE had not formally established a procedure for refunding IEEPA duties deposited on Type 03 entries before liquidation.  CBP is now claiming that they could be requested in CAPE phase 1, but would not be refunded until liquidation. 

That is significant because AD/CVD entries will remain unliquidated while Commerce completes its administrative proceedings and determines the amount of duties ultimately owed. 

In other words, an importer may know that it paid an unlawful IEEPA tariff but still be unable to receive that money back because its entry remains suspended for AD/CVD purposes. 

Standing alone, that would be a refund-delay problem. But Commerce’s treatment of those IEEPA duties creates a potentially much larger issue. 

Commerce Is Deducting IEEPA Duties From U.S. Price 

The motion points directly to Commerce’s June 2026 final determination in the antidumping investigation of Silicon Metal from Australia as an example of the problem. 

When calculating a dumping margin, Commerce compares U.S. price with the applicable comparison value, making various statutory adjustments along the way. Under Section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, Commerce reduces U.S. price for certain U.S. import duties. 

In Silicon Metal from Australia, Commerce treated IEEPA tariffs as such import duties and deducted them from reported U.S. price. Commerce reasoned that there was no evidence the respondent had actually received a refund and that the agency could not base its determination on a refund that “might occur in the future.” 

Craven’s motion identifies the practical consequence: reducing U.S. price in this manner can increase the calculated antidumping duty rate. 

The motion argues that Commerce is “significantly increasing” calculated antidumping duties by treating the IEEPA duties as ordinary customs duties, even though the underlying IEEPA tariffs were held unlawful. 

During the hearing, Craven identified another administrative determination where Commerce repeated the same action, and thus Craven argued that this had become a uniform and established practice and that the government claims that this was “unique” “fact specific” were unavailing. 

The Catch-22 for Importers 

This creates the central problem Craven is asking the CIT to address. Commerce says, in effect, that it cannot assume the IEEPA duty will be refunded until there is evidence that the refund has occurred. 

But the affected Type 03 entry may not be able to receive that refund until it liquidates. 

And the entry may not liquidate until after Commerce completes the antidumping proceeding and calculates the dumping margin. As the motion puts it, because liquidation cannot occur until the AD proceeding is completed, it may be “presently impossible to avoid this artificial increase” in antidumping duties. 

Craven Asks the CIT to Break the Cycle 

Craven’s motion proposes two related solutions. 

First, it asks the CIT to issue an order clarifying that all IEEPA duties collected on Type 03 entries were unlawfully imposed and must be refunded. 

Craven also asks the CIT to use its equitable powers and direct CBP to immediately refund IEEPA duties on Type 03, without waiting for liquidation. 

The requested relief therefore attacks the problem from both sides: establish certainty that the duties must ultimately be refunded and create a mechanism that would allow the refund to occur without waiting for the AD/CVD process to run its course. 

A Problem That Could Extend Beyond One Case 

The implications potentially reach beyond Aditya Birla Chemicals and Pack Perfect. 

Any importer with entries subject to both IEEPA duties and AD/CVD proceedings could confront the same sequencing problem: the IEEPA duty is refundable, the refund is delayed because the entry remains unliquidated, and Commerce meanwhile treats that unrefunded duty as part of its antidumping calculation. 

The alternative (challenging Commerce’s treatment through litigation after the administrative proceeding) creates its own complications. 

As Craven explained in discussing the case, litigation over an AD/CVD determination can itself result in continued suspension of liquidation. That means an importer challenging an allegedly inflated AD rate could potentially further delay liquidation of the same entries necessary to process the IEEPA refund. 

Resolving the treatment of Type 03 entries now could therefore provide clarity not only for the plaintiffs, but for other companies facing the same intersection of IEEPA refunds and AD/CVD proceedings. 

What Importers Should Watch 

Importers with Type 03 entries on which IEEPA duties were deposited should closely monitor Aditya Birla Chemicals USA Inc. and Pack Perfect Inc. v. Trump, Court No. 26-00134. 

The outcome could affect both sides of an importer’s duty liability: the IEEPA duties it is owed back and the antidumping duties it ultimately owes. 

Diaz Trade Law will continue monitoring the CIT proceedings, CBP’s implementation of CAPE, and Commerce’s treatment of IEEPA duties in AD/CVD proceedings. Companies with entries subject to both IEEPA tariffs and AD/CVD should evaluate how these developments may affect their entries, duty exposure, and refund rights. Contact Diaz Trade Law for assistance: info@diaztradelaw.com, 305-456-3830 

Learn more: