Enforcement Archives - Customs & International Trade Law Firm

$5.15 Million Settlement Highlights Growing Customs Enforcement Under the False Claims Act
Gallery
$5.15 Million Settlement Highlights Growing Customs Enforcement Under the False Claims Act
Enforcement, Import, International Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

$5.15 Million Settlement Highlights Growing Customs Enforcement Under the False Claims Act

Short summary: A Taiwanese manufacturer has agreed to pay $5.15 million to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act by underpaying customs duties on imported goods. According to the Department of Justice, the company used improper customs practices to reduce duties owed to CBP, resulting in significant lost tariff revenue. The settlement underscores the federal government’s continued focus on customs enforcement and the growing use of the False Claims Act to pursue alleged duty evasion.

The U.S. Department of Justice recently announced that a Taiwan-led manufacturer agreed to pay $5.15 million to resolve allegations under the False Claims Act and related administrative claims involving customs duties owed on imported goods. While the company did not admit liability, the settlement serves as another reminder that customs compliance remains a significant enforcement priority for the federal government.

The Case – What Happened

According to the DOJ, the alleged conduct went well beyond a simple classification error. The government alleged that the company used multiple methods over several years to reduce the customs duties it owed on imports. Specifically:

Country of Origin Misrepresentations: From July 2018 through January 2022, Everlight allegedly knowingly misrepresented the country of origin on Chinese-manufactured LEDs. Everlight knew these products were manufactured in China, and then transshipped to Taiwan, before shipping them to the U.S. Everlight allegedly misrepresented to CBP that the products originated in Taiwan rather […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2026-08-10T12:28:37-04:00August 10, 2026|Enforcement, Import, International Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|0 Comments

CBP Seized Your Goods at the Border: Your Options and Next Steps
Gallery
CBP Seized Your Goods at the Border: Your Options and Next Steps
Enforcement, Import, International Trade, Pre-compliance, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

CBP Seized Your Goods at the Border: Your Options and Next Steps

For more information on this topic, check out our webinar: ‘Goods Detained or Seized by CBP? Understand Your Options.” Watch here.

Summary: When CBP seizes imported goods at the border, importers have several options — including filing a Petition, submitting an Offer in Compromise, or pursuing court action. This article explains the difference between detention and seizure, outlines the steps importers should take immediately after receiving a CBP Seizure Notice, and describes how a customs attorney can help recover seized merchandise and prevent future seizure.

Importers expect the import process to run smoothly, but when a product is not compliant with U.S. laws and regulations, CBP is authorized under 19 CFR Part 162 and 19 CFR Part 151 to detain or seize goods upon importation.

When goods arrive at a U.S. port of entry, CBP has the authority to detain a shipment if there is a question about its admissibility or compliance with U.S. laws and regulations. Detention is not the same as seizure. It is a temporary hold that gives CBP time to review the shipment and allows the importer to respond. During this window, a customs attorney can communicate directly with CBP on your behalf, provide the documentation or legal arguments needed to resolve the issue, and work to get your goods released before the situation escalates.

If you do not respond effectively, CBP may move forward with a formal […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2026-08-21T14:21:54-04:00June 19, 2026|Enforcement, Import, International Trade, Pre-compliance, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|0 Comments

A Court Just Blocked an EAPA Evasion Action Over a 519% Duty Rate
Gallery
A Court Just Blocked an EAPA Evasion Action Over a 519% Duty Rate
AD/CVD, Enforcement, U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC)

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

FTC Cracks Down on False “Made in the USA” Claims
Gallery
FTC Cracks Down on False “Made in the USA” Claims
Best Practices, Enforcement, Import, International Trade, Labeling, U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

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

USTR Launches New Section 301 Actions: Key Developments for Importers
Gallery
USTR Launches New Section 301 Actions: Key Developments for Importers
Enforcement, Enforcement, Forced Labor, International Trade, Special 301, tariffs, Trade Policy, U.S. Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR)

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 Jennifer Diaz|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

12 Next