Tariffs and Customs Enforcement

This article is part of Looking Back and Moving Forward: Top Issues Shaping White Collar Law in 2026. Click here to read the full newsletter.

Prosecutions for the evasion of tariff duties and misrepresentations made on customs forms accompanying imports into the United States have been relatively rare over the years. But with the current Administration’s focus on tariffs and ensuring the truth of attestations concerning the nature of the goods imported, the value of those goods, and countries of origin, we expect to see a significant uptick in government enforcement.

Internal organizational shifts and other actions reflect executive agency efforts to turn words into enforcement action. For example, this summer, the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that the Major Frauds Section would substantially focus on tariff enforcement and add attorneys from the previously existing Consumer Protection Branch within the Civil Division. The acting head of the Criminal Division explained that this larger section, “which will be renamed the Market, Government, Consumer Fraud Unit, will focus on trade fraud and other white collar crimes affecting investors and consumers.”

Six weeks later, the Administration announced the creation of a new Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security “Trade Fraud Task Force to bring robust enforcement against importers and other parties who seek to defraud the United States.”

Process and Regulatory Framework

When goods are imported into the United States, certain regulatory requirements are triggered. The process begins when the importer purchases foreign goods, and the seller ships them to a U.S. port of entry (air, land, or sea). For ocean freight, an Importer Security Filing (ISF), also known as the “10+2 rule,” must be transmitted to Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) at least 24 hours before the cargo is loaded onto the vessel to help CBP evaluate any risks. Once the vessel arrives, the importer receives a notice of arrival with details for pickup. CBP assesses the goods for compliance with U.S. import regulations.

The importer (or a licensed customs broker on their behalf) must file entry documents with CBP at the port of arrival within 15 calendar days of the shipment’s arrival, usually through the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system. CBP may randomly select an imported shipment for inspection. Once the goods are cleared, the importer must file the entry-summary documentation and pay all estimated duties, taxes, and fees within 10 working days of the goods’ release. We can expect increased enforcement to ensure that the country of origin of goods is true (transshipment actions), as well as to ensure that goods labeled as ‘Made in America’ were truly manufactured in the United States.

On the civil enforcement side, the FCA is the dominant statute utilized by the government. FCA matters can be self-generated by the government or come to the government via whistleblowers. On the criminal side, the government can invoke several statutes, including but not limited to false statements to a government agency (Section 1001), wire fraud, and general and specific conspiracy statutes. In the 2025 fiscal year, the Department of Justice reported that settlements and judgments under the False Claims Act exceeded $6.8 billion – the highest amount in a single year in the history of the Act.

Recent Matters

In March 2024, Akua Mosaics and its president pleaded guilty to conspiring to smuggle porcelain mosaic tiles by falsely labeling them as originating from Malaysia (when they were made in China), to avoid anti-dumping duties. They were sentenced (probation) and ordered to pay restitution of approximately $1.09 million. United States v. Akua Mosaics, No. 3:24-cr-00105-ADC (D.P.R.), ECF Nos. 38 & 39 (July 11, 2024).

In April 2025, DOJ intervened in United States ex rel. Lee v. Barco Uniforms, Inc. In this qui tam case, the Relator alleged that Barco conspired to undervalue imported apparel (from China) by misrepresenting values on invoices, thereby paying lower customs duties than required. United States ex rel. Lee v. Barco Uniforms, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-01805-DC-JDP (E.D. Cal.), ECF No. 65 (April 11, 2025).

In July 2025, DOJ announced a $6.8 million settlement by Global Plastics LLC and Marco Polo International LLC, both subsidiaries of MGI International LLC, to resolve their civil liability under the FCA for knowingly failing to pay customs duties on certain plastic resin imported from China.

In July 2025, DOJ filed an FCA complaint (United States ex rel. Joyce v. Global Office Furniture, LLC) alleging that the company, Global Office Furniture, LLC, evaded at least $2 million in tariffs by submitting false (understated) invoices to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). United States v. Global Office Furniture, LLC, No. 2:20-cv-001223-DCN (D.S.C.), ECF No. 50 (July 15, 2025). The scheme involved “double-invoicing”: one genuine invoice for the actual price (used to bill buyers), and a second, false, lower-value invoice submitted to CBP for calculating duties. The DOJ also claims that the executive directed the destruction of incriminating evidence (e.g., deleting emails). Id. at 17.

In July 2025, patio furniture company Grosfillex paid $4.9 million to resolve allegations made under the FCA that it evaded duties on extruded aluminum from China.

In September 2025, DOJ announced criminal charges against two Denver-area companies and the companies’ top executives for defrauding the federal government on sales of forklifts and conspiring to avoid paying proper tariffs on forklifts imported into the United States.

Looking Ahead to 2026 and Beyond

Following the various DOJ announcements with respect to tariff enforcement and observing a consistent series of announcements in this case type, we expect to continue to see an uptake in this space.

• Increased Use of FCA: Many recent cases are civil, brought under the FCA. This suggests DOJ is leaning on whistleblower-driven enforcement to tackle customs fraud.
• Criminal Enforcement: While civil cases are prominent, there are still criminal prosecutions (e.g., the Akua Mosaics case), and DOJ has made “trade and customs fraud, including tariff evasion” a white collar enforcement priority.
• Interagency Coordination: The new task force formalizes cooperation between the Department of Homeland Security and DOJ—showing that the government is treating tariff evasion more systematically.
• Transshipment Risk: The CBP EAPA case (over $250 million in one probe) underscores the risk of illegal transshipment

  (routing goods through third countries to disguise origin) as a key method of evasion.

• Whistleblower Incentives: Given the use of FCA, the government is likely incentivizing insiders or competitors to report misdeeds; this could increase exposure for importers using aggressive or questionable classification / valuation strategies.

Clients should be extra diligent in ensuring the accuracy of whatever forms and representations are submitted to the government. We can expect increased enforcement to ensure that the country of origin for goods is accurately stated (to prevent transshipment), as well as to verify that products labeled ‘Made in America’ were truly manufactured in the United States.

Copyright © 2026 by Ballard Spahr LLP.
www.ballardspahr.com
(No claim to original U.S. government material.)

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the author and publisher.

This alert is a periodic publication of Ballard Spahr LLP and is intended to notify recipients of new developments in the law. It should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own attorney concerning your situation and specific legal questions you have.