FDA Update: Increased Cosmetics Oversight Under MoCRA 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently published a Voices blog, highlighting the progress the agency has made in implementing the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA).

MoCRA Background

MoCRA instituted a sweeping overhaul of federal cosmetics regulation that significantly expanded the FDA’s authority over the cosmetics and personal care industry. The FDA views MoCRA as the most substantial expansion of FDA cosmetics oversight since the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was enacted in 1938.

MoCRA was signed into law in December 2022 and introduced a broad range of new regulatory requirements aimed at improving consumer safety, increasing transparency, and strengthening FDA enforcement capabilities. The law applies to a wide array of cosmetic products, including makeup, skincare, fragrances, shampoos, and other personal care items used daily by consumers.

Implementation Update

In its recent update, the FDA highlighted several ways the legislation is already reshaping the cosmetics industry. One of the most significant developments is the agency’s increased visibility into cosmetic manufacturing and ingredient use through mandatory facility registration and product listing requirements. The FDA reported:

  • 15,000 unique, active cosmetic product facility registrations
  • Over 1 million unique, active cosmetic product listings.
  • adverse events reported by industry increased by more than threefold

Before MoCRA, the FDA received just 5,176 cosmetic establishment registrations and 35,102 cosmetic product listings through the Voluntary Cosmetic Registration Program. This […]

CIT Strikes Down Section 122 Tariffs: What This Means for Businesses

On the afternoon of May 7, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued a significant decision invalidating the Trump Administration’s 10% global tariff imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. In State of Oregon et al. v. United States and companion cases, the court granted summary judgment for certain importer plaintiffs and permanently enjoined enforcement of the tariffs as unlawful. The Court found that only importers and not states had standing to challenge this action and limited the relief to those importer plaintiffs in Court. This relief, while precedential, does not apply at this time to anyone not in this court case. In order to benefit, it appears that entities will need to file their own case seeking similar relief. 

This decision sharply limits presidential authority to impose tariffs under Section 122 – a section of the Trade Act that the President was reliant upon after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down IEEPA tariffs in February 2026.   

The Section 122 Tariffs at Issue 

The case challenged Proclamation No. 11012, which imposed a 10% ad valorem tariff on most imported goods beginning February 24, 2026. 

The administration justified the tariffs under Section 122, which allows temporary import surcharges (up to 15%) to address “fundamental international payments problems,” including “large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits.” 

To support the tariffs, the Proclamation relied on: 

  • A […]
By |2026-05-08T09:21:41-04:00May 7, 2026|tariffs|0 Comments

New AD/CVD Case Filed Against Stationary and Portable Air Compressors from China, Malaysia, and Vietnam 

A new antidumping and countervailing duty action has been filed against stationary and portable air compressors from China, Malaysia, and Vietnam. The allegation is that imports from China, Malaysia, and Vietnam are unfairly subsidized and are being dumped.  

Full list of importers here.  

Full list of exporters here.

Background on AD/CVD Investigations 

 Antidumping duty (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) investigations are brought jointly by the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC”) and the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”). AD investigations are triggered when a domestic industry alleges that it has been injured by competing imports of particular goods from specific countries being sold at less than a fair value. Meanwhile, CVD investigations are triggered when a domestic industry alleges that it has been injured by competing imports that are being unfairly subsidized by their governments. The domestic industry initiating the investigation is known as the petitioner, while the foreign industry participating in the investigation is known as the respondent.

Scope of the Investigation  

The merchandise covered by these investigations is stationary and portable air compressors, electric, gas, and battery-powered.  

The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under the following subheadings: 8414.80.1615, 8414.80.1625, 8414.80.1635, and 8414.80.1685.  

Full scope here.

Next Steps 

The Commerce Department will determine whether to initiate the investigations within […]

Three Enforcement Actions, One Message: Trade Violations Are Serious Crimes 

Learn more about this topic in our upcoming webinar: From Error to Action: Filing a Prior Disclosure with CBP 

As tariffs climb and global trade becomes more complex, a growing number of importers are testing the limits, or outright breaking the law, to reduce or avoid duty payments and other compliance costs. U.S. enforcement agencies, including Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), have made it clear that customs fraud will not be tolerated and is a top enforcement priority. Three recent cases illustrate the new reality for enforcement. 

1. Undervaluation and the False Claims Act: $2.1 Million Settlement

An importer of fitness equipment agreed to pay $2.1 million to resolve allegations under the False Claims Act that it knowingly undervalued imported goods. 

According to the government, the company knowingly declared artificially low values on its imports in order to reduce tariff obligations. The company also failed to include the cost of computer tablets incorporated into packaged equipment.  

The settlement also resolves a qui tam False Claims Act case brought by a whistleblower, Mr. Greg Dahlstrom. Dahlstrom will receive $420,000 of the proceeds from the settlement. 

2. Importing Precursor Chemicals: Possible Life Sentence

On April 27, 2026, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York announced the unsealing of an indictment charging two Chinese nationals with importing a methamphetamine precursor chemical into the United States with the intent […]

By |2026-05-11T14:35:41-04:00May 2, 2026|Enforcement|0 Comments

Breaking Trade News: Tariff Refunds May 11, New 232 Duty-Free Code, Forced Labor Hearing

Here is a recap of the latest customs and international trade law news:        

Customs and Border Protection (CBP)   

  • The first reciprocal tariff refunds will be issued on or around May 11, according to a summary of a closed CIT conference between CBP and Judge Eaton.  
  • CBP officers in Chicago intercepted a monkey carcass and 125 pounds of prohibited ruminant meat. 
  • CBP issued an extension of emergency import restrictions on some archaeological and ethnological material from Afghanistan, effective April 28, 2026.  

Department of Commerce 

  • Commerce published a Federal Register notice adding a duty-free code in the HTSUS to cover goods subject to the Section 232 aluminum, steel, or copper tariff regimes that do not, in fact, contain these metals.  This new provision applies retroactively to April 6, 2026, 

United States Trade Representative (USTR)   

  • USTR held a Section 301 review hearing to determine what burden on U.S. commerce resulted from other countries failing to keep goods made with forced labor out of their markets. 
  • USTR is seeking public comments on recommendations to modernize the African Growth and Opportunity Act. Recommendations will focus […]
By |2026-05-01T09:23:19-04:00May 1, 2026|news, Snapshot, Uncategorized|0 Comments
Go to Top