Enforcement

Wood Packaging Material Violations: What to Do When CBP Issues an EAN 

This article explains what an importer should do in the first 24 hours after CBP issues an Emergency Action Notification (EAN) for non-compliant wood packaging material (WPM), how CBP calculates and mitigates the penalties that follow, and how the new APHIS-approved shredder-hammermill treatment can save the underlying cargo. It matters because a WPM penalty is assessed at the full domestic value of the merchandise, requires no pre-penalty notice, and can be issued even when the importer fully complies with the EAN. The decisions made before the cargo leaves the port determine how much of that exposure survives. 

KEY TAKEAWAYS 

  • An Emergency Action Notification (EAN) for non-compliant wood packaging material is not the end of the matter. It is the start of a penalty file. Call counsel the day it arrives, not the day the penalty notice arrives. 
  • CBP penalties for WPM violations are assessed at the domestic value of the merchandise under 19 U.S.C. § 1595a(b), with no pre-penalty notice required. A single violation is enough. The old five-violation threshold was eliminated in 2017. 
  • Mitigation is real but shrinks fast: 1 to 10 percent of the penalty on a first violation, 10 to 25 percent on a second, and a 25 percent floor on the third. Documented immediate remediation and cooperation are what move you toward the low end. 
  • Shredder-hammermilling is now an APHIS-approved treatment for non-compliant […]

CBP eRecordation Program Update: What Rights Holders and Importers Should Watch After CBP’s August 2026 Briefing 

CBP’s Intellectual Property Enforcement Branch briefed eRecordation holders on August 27, 2026 on changes to the recordation application, future expanded pre-seizure disclosure authority, pending legislation, and an enforcement posture that has to consequence delivery, especially collecting penalties for IP violations. This article updates our earlier overview of CBP’s recordation program and identifies the items that should prompt rights holders to revisit existing recordations and importers to tighten sourcing controls. If your recordation was filed more than a year ago, several of these changes affect you directly. 

KEY TAKEAWAYS 

  • CBP’s FY 2025 IPR seizures reached roughly 78 million items with an MSRP near $7.4 billion, up sharply from the FY 2024 figures. 
  • The e-Recordation portal now validates against USPTO data. Supplemental Register marks, dead registrations, and classes not on the principal registration are rejected. 
  • Renewals are $80 per class and ownership changes are $80. Up to three contact emails are now accepted; one should be a monitored general inbox. 
  • CBP is piloting a Master Price List collection (national MSRP for every covered product), which will be an upload option on new applications and renewals. 
  • The Counterfeit Notification Act, which would let CBP share shipping labels, invoices, and e-commerce platform information with rights holders and their representatives , has passed both the House and Senate but must still clear final congressional action before being […]

DHS Adds 43 Companies to the UFLPA Entity List, the Largest Expansion Yet 

On July 31, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security, acting on behalf of the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force (FLETF), announced the addition of 43 companies to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List, along with technical updates to the official names of two entities already listed.  

The New List 

The revised list published as an appendix to a Federal Register notice on August 3, 2026, bringing the total to 187 entities, a roughly 30% increase, and the single largest expansion since the UFLPA took effect in 2022. The newly designated companies operate in DHS’s high-priority enforcement sectors, including aluminum, apparel, copper, cotton, and tomatoes and downstream products. Notably, a substantial share of the additions are headquartered outside the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR), in provinces such as Shandong, Jiangsu, and Henan, which highlights that Entity List exposure is not a question of geography alone. 

CBP’s UFLPA Authority 

Under the UFLPA, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) applies the UFLPA’s rebuttable presumption under 19 U.S.C. § 1307 to goods mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part by any of the newly listed entities, and, critically, to downstream merchandise that incorporates their inputs. There is no de minimis threshold: a single component, raw material, or subassembly traceable to a listed company can support detention of an entire shipment.  

To secure release, an importer must either show that the UFLPA […]

$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 […]

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 […]

Go to Top