EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CBP conducted its first public webinar on the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (“CAPE”) system on April 16 and confirmed that Phase 1 will go live on April 20, 2026. We recommend that all clients with eligible IEEPA entries be ready to file CAPE Declarations when the system opens. However, clients should approach CAPE with clear expectations about its limitations, the certification risks it introduces, the unique offset dangers, and the significant categories of entries it will not process. CAPE should be treated as one tool in a broader refund strategy—not as a substitute for maintaining a §1581(i) action in the Court of International Trade.

What CAPE Is and How It Works. CAPE is an administrative tool CBP built within the ACE Portal to streamline IEEPA duty refunds. It is not a refund system in the traditional sense—it is an entry revision tool. CAPE strips the IEEPA Chapter 99 HTS codes and associated duties from entries, recalculates the duties owed on the remaining tariff provisions, and issues the net difference as a consolidated refund by Importer of Record (IOR) and liquidation date.

Phase 1 scope is limited. Phase 1 covers entries that are unliquidated or liquidated within 80 days. Significant categories are excluded: finally liquidated entries; reconciliation entries and entries flagged for reconciliation; drawback entries; entries with open protests; entries not in ACE; and AD/CVD entries pending Commerce liquidation instructions. Phase 1 will accept but not immediately process entries with suspended or under-review status and warehouse entries. CBP provided no timeline for Phase 2, stating only it will launch “as soon as ready.”

Filing process. IORs or their licensed customs brokers upload a .csv file of entry numbers through the CAPE tab in the ACE Portal. Each Declaration is limited to 9,999 entries; multiple Declarations may be filed. ABI cannot be used, and attorneys cannot file CAPE Declarations on behalf of clients. CBP performs two levels of validation: file-level errors reject the entire CAPE Declaration; business-level errors reject individual entries while the remainder proceeds. CBP estimates 60–90 days from acceptance to refund.

CAUTIONS AND CONCERNS

No statutory or regulatory basis. Unlike litigation under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), or other administrative remedies like protests under 19 U.S.C. § 1514, CAPE is entirely an administrative creation of CBP. It has no appeals process, no statutory right of review, and no independent judicial enforcement mechanism. It can be modified, paused, or withdrawn at any time without notice.

Certification creates penalty exposure. Filing a CAPE Declaration requires certifying that all classifications, valuation, country of origin, and entry type information in the entries submitted in a CAPE Declaration is “true and correct,” with an express acknowledgment of potential liability under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 542, 545, 19 U.S.C. § 1592, and the False Claims Act. There is significant concern that CBP will use these certifications as a basis for penalty claims if it identifies errors in original entries. CBP has encouraged importers to file Post-Summary Corrections (PSCs) before submitting CAPE Declarations if corrections are required for the underlying entry.

Recalculations may produce unexpected results. CAPE strips all IEEPA duties from an entry’s duty calculations and recalculates from scratch. The net refund may differ from expectations. For example, for Chapter 73 steel articles, CBP may apply the full declared value for customs duty purposes rather than the steel-content value originally used for Section 232 purposes. A go-slow approach is prudent where feasible—e.g., filing test Declarations with a limited number of entries (preferably unliquidated entries), before submitting in bulk.

However, importers must balance caution against the 80-day post-liquidation window: entries that cross the 80-day threshold become ineligible for Phase 1. For some importers, filing promptly on entries approaching that 80-day deadline will be the priority, as the risk of losing Phase 1 eligibility may outweigh the risk of an unexpected recalculation, which can be identified and challenged after the fact. 1[/We anticipate that errors in CBP’s recalculation of duties will be susceptible to challenge via administrative protest under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 as customs errors once the underlying entries liquidate, or via existing § 1581(i) litigation.]That said, importers who anticipate that CBP may assert an offset claim should proceed more carefully as CBP has not released any details on what categories of “liabilities” it will seek to offset against IEEPA refunds, what criteria it will apply, or what procedural protections, if any, will be afforded to importers before an offset is applied.¹2 If you are in any sort of dispute with CBP, you should consult counsel before filing in CAPE. In such cases, if an importer elects to forego filing on CAPE due to the risk of offset, IEEPA duty relief should remain available through a pending § 1581(i) action, which is not subject to the same unilateral offset risk. For entries with ample time remaining before they become ineligible for Phase 1, and no offset concerns, a measured test-first approach is appropriate.

2 We have serious questions about the legality of this CAPE offset mechanism, particularly as applied to
disputed liabilities or liabilities that are themselves the subject of pending litigation. The CIT’s April 14 proceedings
in Euro-Notions noted that IEEPA duty refunds may be applied to offset other outstanding customs debts when
importers voluntarily use CAPE—and we do not know if CBP will apply offsets to debts the importer is actively
disputing (e.g., via pending protest or pending litigation). This offset risk is specific to CAPE, and the Court
characterized CAPE submissions as a “voluntary” administrative process. By contrast, refunds obtained through a
§ 1581(i) court order are not subject to the same unilateral offset by CBP—another reason why maintaining a CIT
action is critical, particularly for importers with other outstanding duty disputes.

CAPE will create disparities among your entries. Phase 1’s limited scope means many importers will have some entries processed and others excluded. Excluded entries—liquidated beyond 80 days, pending protests, AD/CVD entries, reconciliation entries and entries flagged for reconciliation, drawback entries—will need to be pursued through § 1581(i) litigation, protests, or undefined future phases. The tracking burden on importers and their brokers will be significant.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. File CAPE Declarations—but proceed carefully. Determine entries eligible for Phase 1 by reviewing entry liquidation reports. Ensure ACH/bank account information is current in ACE.
Consider filing initial test Declarations with a limited number of entries before committing larger volumes. Given the certification and penalty risks, review entries for accuracy and correct any
underlying entry errors via PSC before including in a CAPE declaration. Do not file if you have outstanding customs debts you are disputing.

2. Maintain your § 1581(i) action in the CIT. A pending CIT action provides enforceable judicial oversight, covers all entries regardless of liquidation status (including informal entries not
handled by CAPE), and protects against risks noted herein, including appellate court reversal of key relief. CAPE has no specific enforcement mechanism, but a § 1581(i) case does. If you have
not yet filed a CIT action, we strongly recommend doing so.

3. File protective protests on liquidated entries that are at least 80 days post-liquidation but before the 180-day protest deadline. Importers who filed a CIT action after February 20, 2026, should file protective protests late in the 180-day post-liquidation window—this keeps entries CAPE-eligible longer and preserves time to identify all applicable protest grounds. Importers who filed CIT actions before February 20 do not need to file backup protests.

4. Track everything. Maintain a complete inventory of IEEPA entries by liquidation status. Track which CAPE Declarations are accepted, rejected, and why. This will be essential for alternative
remedies on entries CAPE does not process.

CAPE is a welcome development insofar as it provides a channel for processing some IEEPA refunds. But it is not the comprehensive solution CBP has marketed, and it carries significant uncertainties and risks that importers must understand. We will continue to monitor CAPE’s implementation and the CIT proceedings. 3

We will continue to monitor the litigation and the rollout of CAPE. The next status report is due April 28,2026, and we will provide a further update at that time.

Please contact a Neville Peterson professional if you have questions regarding IEEPA refund litigation or customs protest strategy.

3 The next court milestone is CBP’s April 28 status report in the Euro-Notions lead case, and we will
provide a further update at that time..