PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 13, 2025
Fighting Trade Cheats Act of 2025
This bill increases penalties for, and establishes additional enforcement mechanisms related to, fraudulent and grossly negligent violations of U.S. customs laws.
Specifically, the bill increases the maximum civil penalty for a fraudulent violation to three times the domestic value of the merchandise. (Currently, the maximum penalty is the domestic value of the merchandise.) It prohibits a person who commits a fraudulent violation from importing merchandise into the United States for a five-year period.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Additionally, the bill increases the maximum civil penalty for a grossly negligent violation to the lesser of (1) 3 times the domestic value of the merchandise; or (2) 10 times the lawful duties, taxes, and fees. (Currently, the maximum penalty is the lesser of the domestic value of the merchandise or four times the lawful duties, taxes, and fees.) It prohibits a person who commits a grossly negligent violation from importing merchandise into the United States for a two-year period.
Further, the bill applies these importation bans to an affiliated person (e.g., a family member or employee) of the person who committed the fraudulent or grossly negligent violation.
The bill establishes a private right of action for an interested party (e.g., a manufacturer) affected by customs fraud or grossly negligent violations.
The bill prohibits any person (or an affiliated person) who commits a fraudulent or grossly negligent violation from participating in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Importer of Record program, and further requires revocation of their importer of record numbers.
People & committees
Rep. Bost, Mike [R-IL-12] · R–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Sep 25, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1284 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1284 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1284 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1284 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-13 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Fighting Trade Cheats Act of 2025 would strengthen penalties for fraudulent or grossly negligent customs violations. It would temporarily bar violators and affiliated persons from importing, and let specified injured U.S. businesses and industry groups sue for compensation and additional penalties. It would also exclude violators and affiliated persons from the importer of record program, which assigns importer identification numbers.
This Act may be cited as the Fighting Trade Cheats Act of 2025.
Increase in civil penalties for fraudulent and grossly negligent violations of United States customs laws
(i) that commits a fraudulent violation of subsection (a) shall be prohibited from importing merchandise into the United States during a period of five years beginning on the date of entry of a final judgment with respect to such violation; and (ii) that is an affiliated person of a person described in clause (i) shall be prohibited from importing merchandise into the United States during the period described in such clause.
An interested party the business, property, or other financial interest of which is injured by a fraudulent or grossly negligent violation of section 592(a) may bring a civil action
recover compensatory damages equal to the amount of such injury plus an additional penalty equal to three times the amount of compensatory damages
The Secretary shall revoke the importer of record number assigned to any person under the importer of record program if the Secretary subsequently determines that the person is a person described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1).
For the referenced customs provision, a purchaser would be presumed to know about a violation when buying from the second or later affiliated seller, if the purchaser buys from two or more affiliated sellers after Customs and Border Protection or a competent court has determined that those sellers committed fraud or gross negligence.
For purposes of paragraph (1)(B), if a person purchases merchandise from two or more affiliated persons after such persons are determined by U.S. Customs and Border Protection or a court of competent jurisdiction to have violated subsection (a) by means of fraud or gross negligence, there shall be a presumption that the purchaser had knowledge of such violation with respect to purchases from the second or subsequent such affiliated person.
For fraudulent violations, the bill would insert “three times” before the existing reference to “the domestic value” in the civil penalty provision. The supplied text does not reproduce the full existing penalty rule.
(i) by striking A fraudulent violation and inserting the following: (A) In general A fraudulent violation ; (ii) in subparagraph (A) (as so designated), by inserting before the domestic value the following: three times
For grossly negligent violations, the bill would retain a comparison using the lesser of two amounts while changing the domestic-value component to three times domestic value and another multiplier from four to 10. In a separate branch of that penalty rule, it would replace “40 percent of” with “three times.” The full formulas and their conditions are not reproduced.
(ii) by striking (A) the lesser of— and inserting the following: (i) the lesser of— ; (iii) by striking (i) the domestic value and inserting the following: (I) three times the domestic value ; (iv) by striking (ii) four times and inserting the following: (II) 10 times ; (v) by striking (B) if the violation and inserting the following: (ii) if the violation ; (vi) in clause (ii) of subparagraph (A) (as so redesignated), by striking 40 percent of and inserting three times
A fraudulent violation would trigger a five-year import ban beginning when a final judgment is entered. Affiliated persons would be barred during the same period.
A person— (i) that commits a fraudulent violation of subsection (a) shall be prohibited from importing merchandise into the United States during a period of five years beginning on the date of entry of a final judgment with respect to such violation; and (ii) that is an affiliated person of a person described in clause (i) shall be prohibited from importing merchandise into the United States during the period described in such clause.
A grossly negligent violation would trigger a two-year import ban beginning when a final judgment is entered. Affiliated persons would be barred during the same period.
A person— (i) that commits a grossly negligent violation of subsection (a) shall be prohibited from importing merchandise into the United States during a period of two years beginning on the date of entry of a final judgment with respect to such violation; and (ii) that is an affiliated person of a person described in clause (i) shall be prohibited from importing merchandise into the United States during the period described in such clause.
The purchaser presumption and import bans would use the definition of “affiliated person” in section 771(33) of the Tariff Act. That definition is referenced but not reproduced in the supplied text.
In subparagraph (A), the term affiliated person has the meaning given that term in section 771(33).
In subparagraph (B)(ii), the term affiliated person has the meaning given that term in section 771(33).
An eligible party whose business, property, or other financial interest is injured by customs fraud or gross negligence could sue the person causing the injury and anyone who aids or assists that violation. The suit could be brought in a federal district where the injury occurred, regardless of the amount at stake.
An interested party the business, property, or other financial interest of which is injured by a fraudulent or grossly negligent violation of section 592(a) may bring a civil action against any person that causes such injury, or any person that aids or abets that person in violating section 592(a), in any United States District Court located in a district in which the interested party has suffered injury, without regard to the amount in controversy.
Eligible plaintiffs would include U.S. manufacturers, producers, and wholesalers of similar or competing goods; qualifying unions or worker groups representing those industries; and trade or business associations whose majority membership makes, produces, or wholesales those goods in the United States.
the term interested party means— (A) a manufacturer, producer, or wholesaler in the United States of like merchandise or competing merchandise; (B) a certified union or recognized union or group of workers that is representative of an industry engaged in the manufacture, production, or wholesale in the United States of like merchandise or competing merchandise; or (C) a trade or business association a majority of the members of which manufacture, produce, or wholesale like merchandise or competing merchandise in the United States.
For lawsuit eligibility, competing goods would include substitutes for the unlawfully imported goods. Similar goods would mean goods that are alike or, if none are alike, most similar in characteristics and uses.
the term competing merchandise means merchandise that competes with or is a substitute for merchandise being imported into the United States in violation of section 592(a).
the term like merchandise means merchandise that is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, merchandise being imported into the United States in violation of section 592(a).
After proving the required injury and violation, a successful plaintiff would receive compensation for the injury plus an additional penalty equal to three times that compensation—four times the injury amount in total. The plaintiff would also recover litigation costs, including reasonable attorney fees.
Upon proof by an interested party in a civil action brought under subsection (a) that the business, property, or other financial interest of the interested party has been injured by a fraudulent or grossly negligent violation of section 592(a), the interested party shall— (1) (A) recover compensatory damages equal to the amount of such injury plus an additional penalty equal to three times the amount of compensatory damages
(2) recover the costs of bringing the civil action, including reasonable attorney’s fees.
A successful plaintiff would also receive appropriate court-ordered relief beyond money. This could include an order stopping further imports of the merchandise imported in violation of the customs provision.
be granted such equitable relief as may be appropriate, which may include an injunction against further importation into the United States of the merchandise imported into the United States in violation of section 592(a)
The federal government would have a right to join a private enforcement lawsuit with all the rights of a party.
The court shall permit the United States to intervene in an civil action brought under subsection (a), as a matter of right. The United States shall have all the rights of a party.
On a reasonable federal request, a plaintiff would have to provide the complaint and supporting legal filings already submitted. Information already obtained through discovery—the lawsuit's evidence-gathering process—would also have to be provided if the government agrees to reimburse all reasonable costs and expenses of responding.
Upon a reasonable request by the United States Government, any interested party that brings a civil action under subsection (a) shall provide to the United States Government— (A) a copy of the complaint; (B) any memoranda of law or briefing filed with a court in support of the complaint as of the date of the request; and (C) if the United States Government agrees to reimburse the interested party for all reasonable costs and expenses associated with responding to the request, any information obtained by the interested party through discovery processes in the civil action as of the date of the request.
Court orders under the new private enforcement section would be subject to cancellation by the President under section 203 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The supplied bill does not reproduce the conditions governing that emergency authority.
An order by a court under this section is subject to nullification by the President under the authority provided by section 203 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702).
Anyone determined by Customs and Border Protection or a competent court to have committed customs fraud or gross negligence would be ineligible for the importer of record program. Affiliated persons would also be ineligible, and the Secretary would have to revoke an existing importer number upon subsequently determining that its holder falls into either category.
The following persons shall be ineligible to participate in the importer of record program: (A) Any person determined by U.S. Customs and Border Protection or a court of competent jurisdiction to have committed a fraudulent or grossly negligent violation of section 592(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1592(a)). (B) Any person that is an affiliated person of a person described in subparagraph (A).
The Secretary shall revoke the importer of record number assigned to any person under the importer of record program if the Secretary subsequently determines that the person is a person described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1).
For program exclusion, affiliation would use the referenced statutory definition. A person could also be treated as affiliated based on information declared to Customs and Border Protection suggesting a formal or ongoing relationship with a violator, including similar imported goods, shared declared exporters or shippers, and historical import volumes.
the term affiliated person has the meaning given that term in section 771(33) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1677(33)).
a person may be deemed to be an affiliated person for purposes of paragraph (1)(B) based upon information declared to U.S. Customs and Border Protection suggesting a formal or ongoing relationship between that person and a person described in paragraph (1)(A), including similarities in imported merchandise (including article classification upon importation), common declared exporters and shippers, and historical import volumes.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 25, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Ways and Means on February 13, 2025. It supplies no later action.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-25T08:05:46Z. 2025-02-13: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. 2025-02-13: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-13. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential exception was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. The enforcement remedy's intended beneficiaries do not alone constitute a targeted benefit under this review's definition. This conclusion is limited to that version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 25, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI