LinkedInFacebookInstagramXYouTube
305-456-3830|info@diaztradelaw.com

Enforcement

Call 305-456-3830 or email info@diaztradelaw.com.

A Court Just Blocked an EAPA Evasion Action Over a 519% Duty Rate

Quick Summary: On April 24, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade did something importers rarely see – it stepped in mid-investigation and blocked U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from enforcing interim measures in an Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) evasion case. The measures had saddled the importer, ICON EV LLC, with a combined antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) cash-deposit rate of 519.23% and a “live entry” requirement that, on the company’s evidence, would have pushed it into bankruptcy within a month. The decision, ICON EV LLC v. United States, Slip Op. 26-42, is a meaningful crack in what has felt like an impenetrable EAPA enforcement wall, and it offers a roadmap for importers caught in the same trap. 

What is an EAPA evasion investigation? 

The Enforce and Protect Act gives CBP a fast, powerful tool to police the evasion of AD/CVD orders. When a competitor or a domestic industry coalition files a “reasonable allegation” that an importer is dodging duties through transshipment, misclassification, undervaluation, or other schemes, CBP must open an investigation within 15 business days and issue a final determination within 300 days. 

What many importers do not realize is that within 90 days of opening the investigation, CBP must impose “interim measures” if it forms a “reasonable suspicion” of evasion. Those measures can include suspending or extending liquidation of entries, requiring “live entry” (full documentation and duty payment before goods are released), and imposing AD/CVD cash-deposit rates. And critically, the statute does not require CBP to give the importer notice or a chance to respond before those interim measures […]

By |2026-06-08T19:35:02-04:00June 5, 2026|AD/CVD, Enforcement, U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC)|0 Comments
Read More

FTC Cracks Down on False “Made in the USA” Claims 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently announced law enforcement actions involving three companies that falsely claimed that their products were made in the United States.  

Made in the USA

The “Made in the USA” labeling rules were enacted to prevent deceptive advertising and ensure customers can make informed purchasing choices. The concept of labeling products with the correct country of origin dates all the way back to the McKinley Tariff Act in 1890, and Congress and federal agencies have updated “Made in the USA” rules over the years.  

FTC Jurisdiction 

The FTC is charged with preventing deception and unfairness in the marketplace. Under the FTC Act, the Commission may bring legal action against “false or misleading claims that a product is of U.S. origin”. The agency is authorized to issue a civil penalty of up to $40,654 per violation. 

The FTC has issued guidance on complying with the “Made in the USA” standard, most recently in 2021. View the latest guidance here.

When Can I Say Made in the USA? 

For a product to be considered as “Made in the USA” without qualification, that product must be “all or virtually all” made in the U.S. How the Commission determines whether a product is “all or virtually all” made in the U.S. is by looking at whether there was “a ‘reasonable basis’ to support the claim at the time it is made”. To prove […]

By |2026-06-05T11:20:09-04:00June 5, 2026|Best Practices, Enforcement, Import, International Trade, Labeling, U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC)|0 Comments
Read More

USTR Launches New Section 301 Actions: Key Developments for Importers 

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has recently announced a series of significant Section 301 actions targeting a range of trade-related concerns, including intellectual property protection, forced labor, and alleged unfair trade practices. Collectively, these developments demonstrate the Administration’s continued willingness to utilize Section 301 as a tool to address perceived barriers to U.S. commerce and advance broader trade policy objectives. 

Vietnam

On May 29, 2026, USTR published a Federal Register Notice announcing an investigation of Vietnam under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The investigation follows identifying Vietnam as a Priority Foreign Country in the 2026 Special 301 Report, which was published on April 30, 2026. The investigation will seek to determine whether Vietnam’s persistent failure to resolve long-standing concerns about intellectual property (IP) protection and enforcement is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce

Once the investigation is complete, Ambassador Greer will determine what, if any, responsive action should be taken to address them. Comments in this proceeding are due July 2, 2026. 

Brazil

On June 2, 2026, USTR published a Federal Register Notice announcing a determination under Section 301 that certain of Brazil’s acts, policies, and practices are unreasonable and burden or restrict U.S. commerce, and are thus actionable under Section 301(b) of the Trade Act. These acts, policies, and practices include: 

    […]
By |2026-06-05T11:10:41-04:00June 5, 2026|Enforcement, Enforcement, Forced Labor, International Trade, Special 301, tariffs, Trade Policy, U.S. Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR)|0 Comments
Read More

New Executive Order on Strengthening Customs Enforcement

On June 3, 2026, President Trump signed the Executive Order “Strengthening Customs Enforcement,” directing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to overhaul the rules that govern importers of record (IORs). The accompanying White House Fact Sheet frames the Order as a truly significant tightening of importer responsibilities – higher bonds, mandatory domestic assets, a new “good standing” requirement on all importers, and sharp new limits on foreign IORs. As CBP put it in its announcement, importing into the United States “has for too long been treated as a right and not a privilege.” While the Order has set aggressive deadlines for Customs reforms, it leaves most of the operational details to future rulemaking, and several of those details could reshape day-to-day compliance.  

Overview: What the Executive Order Directs 

Within 180 days, the Order requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to revise importer eligibility rules under 19 U.S.C. § 1484, § 1498, and § 1623, among other authorities. The most notable changes for IORs will be: 

  • A requirement that every IOR maintain, at all times, a minimum level of tangible domestic assets, bonding, or both — plus an increase in the minimum required bond coverage. 
  • Expanded data and identification requirements, including anticipated import volumes, year organized, ownership and beneficial ownership disclosures, business affiliations, and […]
By |2026-06-08T19:30:30-04:00June 4, 2026|Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|0 Comments
Read More

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
Read More
This website uses cookies and third party services. By continuing to use our website, you agree to the Privacy Policy. OK
Skip to content
Go to Top