The ANTE Act grants the U.S. Trade Representative new authority to impose remedial duties on goods produced in third countries by entities from nonmarket economies attempting to evade existing U.S. import duties.
Jim Banks
Senator
IN
The ANTE Act, or Axing Nonmarket Tariff Evasion Act, grants the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) new authority to combat duty evasion by entities from nonmarket economy countries. This allows the USTR to impose remedial measures, such as new duties, on goods produced in a third country if a covered entity is using that location specifically to circumvent existing U.S. import duties. The process includes investigations initiated by the USTR, Congress, or interested parties, leading to potential penalties equal to the original evaded duties.
The ANTE Act: New Trade Enforcement Tool Targets Companies Dodging U.S. Duties Through Third Countries
The Axing Nonmarket Tariff Evasion Act—or the ANTE Act—is essentially a new weapon for U.S. trade enforcement. It gives the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) the power to investigate and impose steep new duties on foreign companies that try to bypass existing U.S. import tariffs by moving production to a third country. This isn't about setting new duties on new products; it’s about making sure existing duties—specifically those imposed under Section 301—actually stick when companies try to play shell games with their supply chains.
Closing the Back Door on Tariffs
Think of this as plugging a major loophole. Right now, if the U.S. puts a 25% tariff on widgets from Country X (a designated nonmarket economy), a company owned by Country X might simply build a factory in neighboring Country Z and ship the widgets from there, avoiding the original tariff. The ANTE Act targets this exact move. If the USTR suspects a “covered entity” from Country X is using Country Z to evade duties, they can launch an investigation. A "covered entity" is defined broadly—it’s any company with 25% or more equity funding from that nonmarket economy country. If the USTR confirms this evasion, they can impose a new “remedial measure” on those goods coming from Country Z, which must be a duty equal to at least the original tariff the company tried to avoid.
This process has a hard timeline: the USTR has 45 days to decide if there’s enough evidence to start a formal investigation, and then 180 days to make a final ruling. Crucially, the USTR can act proactively, imposing the new duty as soon as the company has immediate plans to start production in the third country, not just after they’ve started shipping goods. This is a significant shift, allowing the USTR to get ahead of the evasion curve.
What This Means for Your Wallet and the Supply Chain
For U.S. manufacturers who rely on existing tariffs to compete fairly against subsidized foreign goods, this bill is a major win for enforcement. It strengthens the effectiveness of existing trade protections and makes it harder for competitors to undercut them. However, for consumers and businesses relying on imported goods, there are two key things to watch. First, the remedial duties imposed could be substantial—matching the original tariff—which could translate into higher prices for those specific goods coming through the third country. If you’re a small business importing parts, you could suddenly see your costs jump if your supplier is caught in one of these investigations.
Second, the bill concentrates significant power in the USTR, subject to the President's direction. While the USTR must send a justification to Congress if they find duty evasion but choose not to impose a measure, the ultimate decision to act rests with the executive branch. This level of concentrated authority, especially given the broad definition of a “covered entity” (just 25% equity funding), means that trade enforcement could become highly politicized, potentially ensnaring legitimate joint ventures or foreign investment structures that weren't necessarily designed for evasion. The goal is to ensure fair trade, but the practical effect could be increased uncertainty and cost for global supply chains that rely on complex international manufacturing setups.