Section 301 tariffs are extra import taxes the United States can add on specific foreign products when another country is found to be using unfair trade practices that hurt U.S. commerce (for example, some tariffs on Chinese goods). They are imposed by the U.S. government through the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, often after an investigation and with direction or authorization from the President.
The Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) is the coding system the U.S. uses to classify all imported products and apply the correct duty rate. Misclassifying goods means declaring the wrong HTS code or description for what is actually being imported. That can change the duty rate or eligibility for special tariffs (like Section 301 or antidumping duties) and, if done knowingly or carelessly, can be treated as customs fraud under the Tariff Act and enforced by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
“Marking duties” are an extra 10% customs charge that CBP can add when imported foreign goods (or their containers) are not properly marked with their country of origin as required by law. Under 19 U.S.C. §1304 and its regulations, most foreign-made articles must be conspicuously, legibly, and permanently marked in English with the name of the country where they were made before they are released to the U.S. “ultimate purchaser.” If that marking requirement is violated and the goods are not corrected or exported/destroyed under CBP supervision, CBP may assess this additional 10% marking duty.
A qui tam whistleblower suit under the federal False Claims Act is a case where a private person (the “relator”) sues on behalf of the United States, alleging someone knowingly submitted false claims for government money or avoided paying money owed (such as customs duties). The complaint is filed under seal and given to the Department of Justice (DOJ), which investigates and decides whether to intervene and take over the case. If there is a judgment or settlement, the whistleblower receives a statutory share of the recovery (typically 15–25% if the government intervenes, or 25–30% if it does not), plus possible attorneys’ fees, while the rest goes to the U.S. Treasury.
The Trade Fraud Task Force is a cross‑agency enforcement group created by the U.S. Department of Justice, in partnership with the Department of Homeland Security, on Aug. 29, 2025, to target customs‑related fraud. It coordinates civil and criminal enforcement against importers and related parties who evade tariffs and duties or smuggle or misdeclare imports. The Task Force itself does not create new legal powers; instead, it brings together existing authorities and personnel from DOJ (Civil and Criminal Divisions), DHS (including CBP and Homeland Security Investigations), and other agencies to share information, prioritize cases, and more aggressively use existing trade, customs, and fraud statutes (such as the Tariff Act, False Claims Act, and criminal smuggling laws).
CBP determines the country of origin of imported goods mainly by looking at where they were last “substantially transformed,” meaning where the item underwent a significant manufacturing or processing step that changed its name, character, or use. If a product is made entirely in one country, that country is the origin. When multiple countries are involved, CBP analyzes the full production process and decides which country’s operations created the finished article in its essential form. This origin determination affects ordinary tariffs, special tariffs (like Section 301), trade‑agreement preferences, and marking requirements, and CBP makes binding rulings and case‑by‑case decisions under its regulations.
Under the False Claims Act, when a qui tam case results in a settlement or judgment, the whistleblower is paid a percentage of the “proceeds” (the money the government recovers). If DOJ intervenes in the case, the relator typically gets 15–25% of the recovery, depending on how much they contributed; if the whistleblower alone pursues the case, the share is 25–30%, subject to reductions for certain misconduct. The share is calculated on the total civil recovery (sometimes including additional penalties), and is then paid out of that amount to the whistleblower after the settlement or judgment is collected, with the remainder going to the United States. In Mr. Stover’s case, his roughly $9.75 million share reflects this statutory percentage applied to the $54.4 million settlement.