Legal Reference

Section 1514 of Title 19 of the United States Code is the foundational statutory authority for customs protests, including CAPE Declarations. The statute establishes the right of importers to challenge CBP decisions regarding the classification, valuation, and rate of duty applied to imported merchandise.

The protest must be filed in writing and must specify: (1) each entry, payment, or exaction covered by the protest; (2) the date of each such entry, payment, or exaction; (3) the specific decision protested; and (4) the reasons for the objection. 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(1).

Protests are decided by the port director at the port of entry. If the protest is denied, the importer may file suit in the Court of International Trade under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) within 180 days of the denial.

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701–1708, grants the President broad authority to regulate international commerce in response to a declared national emergency. The executive branch has used this authority to impose tariffs through executive orders, including the orders at issue in the CAPE Declaration context.

The key IEEPA tariff orders relevant to CAPE Declaration filings are:

The threshold question in CAPE Declaration proceedings is whether the specific IEEPA order under which additional duties were assessed complied with the APA's notice-and-comment requirements. The Supreme Court's ruling in Brennan Industries established that IEEPA tariff orders of general applicability are subject to APA requirements, but did not invalidate all IEEPA tariff orders categorically.

Brennan Industries v. United States, No. 24-1187 (U.S. April 2, 2026), is the controlling Supreme Court precedent for CAPE Declaration filings. The Court held 6-3 that IEEPA tariff orders imposing duties of general applicability are subject to APA notice-and-comment requirements and are not categorically exempt under the foreign affairs exception.

The majority opinion, authored by Justice Kavanaugh and joined by Justices Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson, distinguished IEEPA tariff orders from traditional trade remedy measures under Sections 201, 232, and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which have specific statutory procedures that displace APA requirements.

The dissent, authored by Justice Thomas and joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch, argued that IEEPA's broad grant of emergency authority necessarily encompasses the power to impose tariffs without APA compliance, and that the majority's ruling improperly constrains executive authority in the foreign affairs and national security domains.

CBP has issued formal guidance on CAPE Declaration processing in CBP Bulletin Vol. 60, No. 15 (April 10, 2026). The guidance establishes the procedural framework for CAPE Declaration review and designates processing centers at four major ports.

Additional duties imposed under IEEPA tariff orders are classified in Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Chapter 99 is a temporary provisions chapter used for special tariff measures, including Section 232, Section 301, and IEEPA tariffs.

When identifying entries eligible for CAPE Declaration refunds, review the "Additional Duties" column on CBP Form 7501 for Chapter 99 HTS numbers. The specific Chapter 99 provision identifies which IEEPA order applied to the entry.

The Court of International Trade (CIT) has exclusive jurisdiction over civil actions arising from the denial of a customs protest under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a). If CBP denies a CAPE Declaration, the importer may file suit in the CIT within 180 days of the denial.

The CIT is a specialized federal court located in New York City with nationwide jurisdiction over customs and international trade matters. CIT proceedings are governed by the Court of International Trade Rules, which are modeled on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure but contain customs-specific provisions.

Importers who escalate CAPE Declarations to the CIT should engage a customs attorney with CIT litigation experience. The CIT has a specialized bar of practitioners familiar with customs law, and general commercial litigators may lack the necessary background in tariff classification and customs procedure.