NO CHEATS Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Moreno, Bernie [R-OH]
- Committees
- Finance Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 30, 2026
Bottom line
The NO CHEATS Act seeks to recover duties on solar imports that allegedly circumvented existing tariffs despite a temporary moratorium, aiming to enforce trade laws and potentially generate revenue for the Treasury while increasing transparency.
What it actually does
This bill requires U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to retroactively assess and collect antidumping and countervailing duties, plus interest, on solar cells and modules that were imported duty-free between June 6, 2022, and June 6, 2024, but did not meet the specific criteria for relief under Presidential Proclamation 10414. It also mandates public disclosure of importers who are billed for these duties, including the assessed amount and payment status.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue the bill closes a loophole that allowed foreign producers to evade legitimate trade duties, thereby undermining domestic solar manufacturing and fair competition. They contend it ensures accountability for those who improperly benefited from a temporary waiver intended for specific, compliant imports, and that it reinforces the integrity of U.S. trade enforcement mechanisms.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that retroactively collecting duties could create significant financial instability for solar developers and importers who relied on the initial proclamation, potentially slowing down solar energy projects and increasing costs for consumers. They might also contend it introduces regulatory uncertainty and could be seen as a punitive measure impacting the clean energy transition.
The bill text is very short and can be read quickly, but understanding its full implications requires familiarity with complex trade law and the context of the solar tariff moratorium.
Section 2(a)
Assessment and Collection of Improperly Waived Duties
This provision mandates that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) must, within 90 days of the bill's enactment, identify and collect antidumping and countervailing duties, along with interest, on solar cells and modules that were imported without duties but did not meet the specific conditions for a waiver under Presidential Proclamation 10414. This targets imports that were deemed to have improperly benefited from a temporary moratorium on certain solar tariffs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision ensures that companies that circumvented trade laws and improperly avoided duties are held accountable, thereby protecting domestic industries from unfair competition and upholding the integrity of U.S. trade policy.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that retroactive duty collection could destabilize the solar industry, penalizing companies that made investment decisions based on the initial duty-free status and potentially hindering the deployment of solar energy projects.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the enforcement of trade laws and protection of domestic industries against potential disruptions to the solar supply chain and increased costs for solar energy development.
Section 2(b)
Definition of "Covered Entry"
This section defines exactly which solar imports are subject to the retroactive duty collection. A "covered entry" must be crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells (or modules) imported between June 6, 2022, and June 6, 2024, admitted duty-free based on the proclamation, subject to existing antidumping or countervailing duty orders (including circumvention findings), and currently undergoing an administrative review. This narrow definition aims to target specific instances of alleged circumvention.
Section 2(g)
Public Disclosure of Importers Billed for Duties
This provision requires CBP to publish a public list, updated quarterly, of all importers who receive a bill for these retroactive duties and interest. The list must include the importer's name and address, the total amount assessed, the number of affected entries, and the payment status (outstanding, paid, or under review). This aims to increase transparency regarding who is being held accountable for the alleged duty evasion.
This section clarifies that the Act does not extend any statute of limitations, limit an importer's right to administrative or judicial review, or restrict the Commissioner's existing authority to pursue penalties or other remedies.
Section 2(f)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to clarify legal intent and avoid unintended interpretations or conflicts with existing law. It's not evasive.
Case for: Supporters argue these clarifications are crucial for legal certainty, ensuring the bill operates within established legal frameworks and respects due process rights for importers while preserving existing enforcement tools.
Case against: Critics might argue that by explicitly preserving existing enforcement tools, the bill could be seen as adding another layer of punitive measures without necessarily streamlining the process, though this is a weak argument against a clarifying section.
Estimated impact: Ensures legal consistency and protects due process rights for affected importers.