The Fighting Trade Cheats Act of 2025 amends the Tariff Act of 1930 to sharpen civil enforcement against customs fraud and gross negligence. It adds a statutory presumption of knowledge for purchasers who buy from multiple affiliated suppliers found to have violated customs laws, increases penalty multipliers, and imposes multi-year import bans for violators and their affiliates.
The bill also creates a new private right of action for U.S. manufacturers, unions, and trade associations to sue importers or parties that aid violations for compensatory damages plus treble damages and attorneys' fees, allows the United States to intervene, and authorizes CBP to exclude or revoke importer-of-record numbers for violators (and to deem affiliates based on specified indicia). These changes shift enforcement incentives toward both public and private actors and expand CBP's authority to police related companies in supply chains.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends 19 U.S.C. 1592 to add a presumption of knowledge for purchasers buying from multiple affiliated suppliers previously found to have committed fraud or gross negligence, raises civil-penalty multipliers in subsection (c), and imposes import bans (five years for fraudulent, two years for gross negligence) on violators and affiliated persons. It inserts a new §592B creating a private cause of action that awards compensatory damages plus a treble penalty and attorneys' fees, permits U.S. intervention, and requires limited information sharing. It also amends the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act to make violators and their affiliates ineligible for the importer-of-record (IOR) program and allows CBP to deem affiliates using specified indicators.
Who It Affects
Directly affected are importers, foreign suppliers and affiliated entities, U.S. manufacturers and wholesalers that compete with imported goods, unionized workers in affected industries, customs brokers, and CBP enforcement operations. Secondary impacts hit supply-chain service providers, small importers that use IOR numbers, and legal counsel handling customs litigation and administrative revocations.
Why It Matters
The bill raises the financial and operational stakes for customs noncompliance by combining larger monetary penalties, time-limited import bans, and the risk of private treble-damage suits. It broadens CBP's discretion to treat related companies as affiliates, which can disrupt import strategies and reshape compliance and contractual practices across global supply chains.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 2 rewrites parts of 19 U.S.C. 1592. It creates a rebuttable presumption that a U.S. purchaser ‘knew’ of customs fraud or gross negligence when that purchaser buys from two or more affiliated suppliers after one affiliate has already been adjudicated or determined by CBP to have violated §1592(a).
The bill borrows the term ‘affiliated person’ from the Tariff Act definition and places the presumption specifically on purchases from the second and subsequent affiliates, narrowing its temporal trigger to post-determination transactions.
The same section materially alters civil penalties. For fraudulent violations it inserts ‘three times’ before the domestic value calculation and adds an express collateral sanction: a five-year prohibition on importing by the identified violator and any affiliated person.
For grossly negligent violations the statute’s penalty formulas are revised to higher multipliers (including a reference to ‘three times’ and new numeric ceilings) and impose a two-year import prohibition on violators and their affiliates. Those additions convert monetary liability into an operational exclusion risk for multiple years, not merely a fine.Section 3 creates a new private enforcement mechanism as §592B.
U.S. manufacturers, producers, wholesalers of like or competing merchandise, certified or recognized unions, and trade associations that represent a majority of domestic producers may sue for injury caused by fraudulent or grossly negligent violations. Successful plaintiffs recover compensatory damages plus an additional penalty equal to three times the compensatory award, may obtain equitable relief (including injunctions to halt further importation of the offending goods), and recover costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.
The United States may intervene as of right, and the statute contemplates information-sharing from private litigants to the government—subject to the government’s agreement to reimburse discovery costs. Importantly, court orders under this new private cause of action remain subject to presidential nullification under IEEPA.Section 4 amends the importer-of-record (IOR) program to make anyone found by CBP or a court to have committed a fraudulent or grossly negligent violation ineligible for IOR participation and authorizes revocation of existing IOR numbers.
The provision also allows CBP to deem a person an affiliate for IOR exclusion purposes on the basis of declared information such as similar classifications, common shippers/exporters, and historical import volumes—explicitly tying CBP’s authority to specific commercial indicia to prevent use of shell companies to evade enforcement. Taken together, the bill increases civil penalties while adding non-monetary tools—private litigation and exclusion from IOR—that expand both remedial reach and preventive leverage against customs misconduct.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates a presumption that a purchaser had knowledge of customs fraud or gross negligence when it buys from two or more affiliated suppliers after one affiliate has been found to have violated 19 U.S.C. 1592(a).
For fraudulent violations the bill inserts a 'three times' multiplier into the civil-penalty calculation and bars the violator—and its affiliated persons—from importing for five years after final judgment.
For grossly negligent violations the statute’s penalty structure is revised to higher multipliers (including references to 'three times' and '10 times' in the amended clauses) and imposes a two-year import ban for violators and their affiliates.
Section 592B establishes a private right of action allowing U.S. manufacturers, certain unions, and trade associations to recover compensatory damages plus an additional penalty equal to three times those damages, equitable relief (including injunctions), and attorneys’ fees; the United States may intervene and obtain information from private litigants if it reimburses costs.
The bill amends the importer-of-record program to make CBP- or court-determined violators and their affiliated persons ineligible, requires revocation of IOR numbers upon later determination, and permits CBP to deem affiliates based on indicators such as product classification, common exporters/shippers, or historical import volumes.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the bill as the 'Fighting Trade Cheats Act of 2025.' This is the standard short-title clause that frames the act for citation and cross-reference.
Presumption of knowledge and increased civil penalties with import bans
Adds a new presumption in subsection (a) that binds purchasers who buy from multiple affiliated suppliers after one affiliate is found to have committed fraud or gross negligence. Subsection (c) is reworked to increase monetary penalties—explicitly inserting 'three times' in the fraudulent violation formula and adjusting language for gross negligence to reflect larger multipliers (including a '10 times' reference where the bill replaces earlier figures). It also creates non-monetary sanctions: a 5-year import prohibition for fraudulent violators and their affiliates, and a 2-year prohibition for grossly negligent violators and affiliates. Practically, these changes transform liability into a sustained operational sanction that can interrupt market access for affected importers and related entities.
Private cause of action for customs fraud and government intervention
Inserts a new statutory private-enforcement tool permitting 'interested parties'—defined as U.S. manufacturers, producers, wholesalers of like or competing merchandise, certain unions, and qualifying trade associations—to sue importers or aiders/abettors for injuries caused by fraudulent or grossly negligent violations. The remedy package includes compensatory damages plus an additional penalty equal to three times compensatory damages, equitable relief (including injunctions to block further importation), and cost-shifting for attorney’s fees. The United States may intervene as of right and can request copies of pleadings and discovery; private plaintiffs must provide materials and may be reimbursed for the cost of complying with discovery requests. Court orders under this section remain subject to presidential nullification under IEEPA, preserving executive authority in national-emergency contexts.
Exclusion and revocation authority for importer-of-record program; deeming affiliates
Makes any person determined by CBP or a court to have committed a fraudulent or grossly negligent §1592(a) violation ineligible for the IOR program and requires revocation of IOR numbers if CBP later determines ineligibility. It defines 'affiliated person' by reference to the Tariff Act and expressly authorizes CBP to deem entities affiliated for IOR exclusion based on declared indicia—product classification similarities, common declared shippers/exporters, and historical import volumes—thereby giving the agency a prescriptive, evidence-based path to collapse shell-company schemes or related-party evasion strategies.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Trade across all five countries.
Explore Trade in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- U.S. manufacturers and domestic producers: The bill gives them a private cause of action and treble-enhanced damages against importers whose fraudulent or grossly negligent conduct injures their business, providing both monetary recovery and the potential to enjoin further imports of offending goods.
- Certified unions and workers in affected industries: Unions representing domestic manufacturing workers can sue as 'interested parties,' making labor organizations a direct enforcement actor where imported goods undercut domestic employment.
- CBP and domestic enforcement interests: CBP gains clearer statutory tools—stronger penalties, multi-year import bans, and explicit authority to deem affiliates for IOR exclusion—making it easier to target complex corporate structures used to evade customs laws.
Who Bears the Cost
- Importers and foreign suppliers (including affiliates): They face higher civil penalties, the risk of multi-year import prohibitions, potential loss of IOR numbers, and greater exposure to private litigation with treble damages and fee awards.
- Customs brokers, small importers, and service providers using IOR numbers: Those who rely on IOR arrangements face heightened compliance risk and possible IOR revocations based on affiliate ties or CBP deeming, disrupting normal import operations and increasing compliance costs.
- Courts, private litigants, and defense counsel: The new private right of action is likely to generate additional federal litigation (including discovery disputes and requests for government intervention) and increase legal and litigation-management costs for both plaintiffs and defendants.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill forces a choice between aggressive, multi-tool enforcement to deter customs fraud and the risk that broad presumptions, affiliate deeming, and private treble-damage suits will over-deter legitimate trade, impose heavy compliance and litigation costs, and enable strategic litigation that harms efficient cross-border supply chains.
The bill stacks remedies—financial multipliers, multi-year import bans, IOR exclusions, and private treble-damage suits—into a single enforcement architecture. That combination magnifies both deterrence and risk: deterrence against deliberate fraud is stronger, but a single adverse determination can cascade into operational exclusion across affiliates and trigger private litigation seeking treble damages.
The presumption of knowledge for purchasers who buy from multiple affiliated suppliers shifts the practical burden toward downstream buyers, which may prompt U.S. purchasers to reroute sourcing or demand more intrusive compliance warranties and audits from suppliers.
CBP’s new ability to 'deem' affiliates on the basis of declared indicia opens a practical enforcement seam but also raises error and fairness risks. The specified indicia (classification similarities, common shippers/exporters, historic volumes) are commercially sensible proxies but can sweep in legitimately structured supply chains where common service providers or standard classifications exist.
The private-enforcement regime introduces the risk of strategic or nuisance suits by competitors or trade groups using §592B to pursue commercial advantages rather than to remedy systemic customs fraud. Finally, the statute contemplates U.S. intervention and cost-reimbursed discovery sharing, but the mechanics of reimbursement, protective orders, and coordination between CBP proceedings and private litigation are left to courts and agency practice, creating implementation uncertainty.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.