PSC vs Protest vs CIT: Which IEEPA Refund Pathway Fits Your Entries

Most importers asking "which pathway should I use" are asking the wrong question. The pathways are not alternatives. They apply to different entries based on liquidation status, and most importers with meaningful IEEPA exposure need more than one in parallel.

Here is the side-by-side comparison.

The Three Pathways at a Glance

Post Summary Correction (PSC)

• Eligibility: Unliquidated entries only.
• Deadline: Before liquidation, typically within 314 days of entry.
• Authority: 19 C.F.R. § 101.9(b); CBP CSMS guidance.
• Mechanism: Amend the original entry summary (CF-7501) to remove IEEPA duties. CBP processes the correction and issues a refund of the difference.
• Cost: Lowest. Administrative filing, no litigation.
• Timeline: 60 to 180 days when CBP is processing them. Currently being rejected for IEEPA claims as of March 2026.
• Risk: Currently the highest near-term risk because CBP is rejecting PSC submissions for IEEPA refunds. The pathway exists on paper but is not flowing in practice.

CBP Protest

• Eligibility: Liquidated entries.
• Deadline: 180 days from date of liquidation.
• Authority: 19 U.S.C. § 1514.
• Mechanism: Formal administrative challenge filed with CBP disputing the assessed duties. CBP either grants or denies. Denial is appealable to the CIT under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a).
• Cost: Moderate. Administrative filing, no litigation unless the protest is denied.
• Timeline: Often 6 to 18 months for CBP decision. Many IEEPA protests are currently being suspended rather than decided.
• Risk: Suspension and denial risk is high right now. But filing the protest preserves the right to appeal to the CIT, which is the actual recovery vehicle for many importers.

Court of International Trade Litigation

• Eligibility: All entries, including those past the 180-day administrative window.
• Deadline: 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) appeals: 180 days from CBP denial. § 1581(i) residual jurisdiction: generally 2 years from accrual of claim.
• Authority: 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) (appeals), § 1581(i) (residual).
• Mechanism: Federal lawsuit filed in the Court of International Trade. More than 1,000 importers have already filed protective actions.
• Cost: Highest in absolute fees, but contingency representation makes it accessible. Filing a protective action is itself relatively inexpensive.
• Timeline: Many CIT actions are stayed while lead cases play out. Resolution timelines vary widely.
• Risk: Lowest in terms of preserving rights. Highest in terms of how long until cash actually moves.

Side-by-Side Decision Table

| Factor | PSC | Protest | CIT |

|---|---|---|---|

| Entry status | Unliquidated | Liquidated within 180 days | Any (including past 180 days) |

| Cost | $ | $$ | $$$ (or $ on contingency) |

| Speed if it works | Fast | Medium | Slow |

| Currently flowing? | Mostly no (CBP rejecting) | Mostly suspended | Yes — courts active |

| Preserves rights for later? | No | Yes (sets up CIT appeal) | Yes (the rights-preservation pathway) |

| Required for some importers? | If unliquidated entries exist | If liquidations within 180 days | Almost always recommended |

The Mistake Most Importers Make

The mistake is treating these as a menu. They are not.

A typical mid-sized importer with $5 million in IEEPA exposure has entries spread across all three buckets: some unliquidated, some recently liquidated, and some past the 180-day window. Picking one pathway leaves the other two buckets uncovered.

The right approach is portfolio-level. Pull the ACE entry data, classify every entry by liquidation status, and apply the right pathway to each. That usually means PSCs for the unliquidated entries, protests for the recently-liquidated entries, and a CIT filing as the rights-preservation backstop across the whole portfolio.

Why CIT Is Almost Always Part of the Strategy

More than 1,000 companies have already filed protective CIT actions. That is not coincidence.

The CIT filing is cheap insurance. Filing fees are low, the case is typically stayed pending lead litigation, and it preserves the right to recover on entries that the administrative pathways may not reach. Even importers whose primary path is PSC or protest typically file a CIT action in parallel because it is the only pathway that does not depend on CBP cooperation.

CBP is currently rejecting PSCs and suspending protests. That is exactly the scenario the CIT filing protects against.

How Much Does Each Pathway Cost on Contingency

Tariff Refund Solutions structures contingency fees by pathway:

• PSCs and protests: 8-15% of recovery, depending on claim size.
• CIT recoveries: 15-25% of recovery, depending on claim size and case complexity.
• CAPE portal recoveries (when launched): Administrative fees reduced by 50%.

There are no upfront fees, no hourly billing, and no cost if there is no recovery. Most importers paying $1M to $20M in IEEPA duties keep 75% to 92% of the gross refund after fees.

What to Do Next

1. Pull your ACE entry data for all imports between April 2025 and February 2026.
2. Classify each entry by liquidation status to determine which pathway applies.
3. File across all applicable pathways in parallel. Do not pick one and wait.
4. Add a CIT filing as the rights-preservation backstop if your exposure is meaningful.

Tariff Refund Solutions handles all three pathways simultaneously on contingency. Free eligibility review pulls your ACE data and produces the entry-by-entry classification. From there we file across whichever pathways apply.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Refund pathways depend on the specific facts and circumstances of each importer. Consult a qualified trade attorney for guidance specific to your situation.