LinkedInFacebookInstagramXYouTube
305-456-3830|info@diaztradelaw.com

penalty

Call 305-456-3830 or email info@diaztradelaw.com.

BIS Announces $2 Million Settlement with Lambda Research Corporation for 66 Export Control Violations 

On October 2, 2026, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced a $2 million administrative settlement with Massachusetts-based Lambda Research Corporation involving 66 alleged violations of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The case involved exports of optical and illumination design software, automatic software updates, and transactions with parties on the Entity List and Unverified List. 

Key Takeaways 

  • EAR99 does not mean unrestricted. Even software classified as EAR99 may require an export license when the recipient is on the BIS Entity List. 
  • Automatic software updates can constitute exports. BIS charged Lambda with violations involving software updates transmitted to restricted parties after their addition to the Entity List. 
  • Restricted-party screening must be ongoing. A customer who was not restricted when a transaction began may become subject to licensing requirements later. 
  • Distributors do not eliminate export compliance obligations. Exporters must evaluate the actual end users of their products, including transactions conducted through intermediaries. 
  • The Unverified List creates additional compliance requirements. Certain transactions involving Unverified List parties require a UVL statement even when an export license is not otherwise required. 
  • Informal compliance efforts are insufficient. BIS cited Lambda’s lack of written export compliance procedures, employee training, and designated compliance personnel. 
  • Voluntary self-disclosure does not eliminate penalties. […]
By |2026-10-09T11:35:03-04:00October 9, 2026|EAR, Enforcement, Export, penalty, U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), Uncategorized|0 Comments
Read More

CBP Seized My Goods: What Happens Next and What Are My Options?

Receiving notice that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has seized your merchandise can bring an import transaction to an immediate halt. More importantly, a seizure means CBP believes there is a legal basis to take possession of the merchandise and potentially pursue forfeiture. 

A CBP seizure is not the same as a routine delay or detention at the border. Once merchandise has been seized, importers face specific procedures and deadlines for challenging the seizure or requesting relief. How you respond can affect whether the goods are released, forfeited, or become the subject of additional enforcement action. 

If CBP has seized your shipment, understanding why the goods were seized, what your Notice of Seizure says, and what options are available should be your first priorities. 

Why Does CBP Seize Imported Goods? 

CBP is responsible for enforcing hundreds of laws and regulations governing merchandise entering the United States. Merchandise may be seized when CBP determines that the goods were imported, entered, or introduced contrary to law. 

Common reasons for CBP seizures include: 

  • Counterfeit goods and intellectual property rights violations; 
  • Prohibited or restricted merchandise; 
  • Undeclared or improperly declared merchandise; 
  • False statements concerning country of origin, value, classification, or other entry information; 
  • Attempts to evade customs duties; 
  • Certain violations involving antidumping […]
By |2026-10-02T13:13:08-04:00October 2, 2026|Enforcement, Import, penalty, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|0 Comments
Read More

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 […]
By |2026-09-03T12:10:01-04:00September 3, 2026|Enforcement, Import, penalty, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Uncategorized|0 Comments
Read More

ICYMI: Patio Furniture Company Agrees to Pay $4.9 Million to Resolve Duty Evasion Allegations

On July 24, 2025, the Department of Justice (DoJ) announced that Grosfillex, Inc., a Pennsylvania furniture company, agreed to pay $4.9 million to resolve allegations it evaded antidumping and countervailing duties (AD/CVD).

Grosfillex submitted false forms to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) claiming that furniture parts made of extruded aluminum from China were not subject to AD/CVD. The company attempted to hide the aluminum extrusions by falsely packing them as sham “furniture kits.” Additionally, for a different subset of extrusions, the company failed to correct customs forms it had submitted previously, even after learning that the forms contained false information.

The investigation arose from a whistleblower lawsuit filed under the False Claims Act by a former employee of Grosfillex. Under the False Claims Act, private citizens can sue on behalf of the government and share in any recovery. In this case, the whistleblower will receive $962,662.74.

Duty Evasion is on the Rise

This case is just one example of the growing incentive to cheat that comes with higher tariffs. Whether it’s through misclassifying goods, undervaluing imports, or using deceptive transshipment routes, some companies think they are being creative, but, instead, are participating in outright illegal strategies to reduce their tariff liability.

Higher tariffs have even contributed to the emergence of a cottage industry of “tariff reduction” companies that suggest ways to cut import costs. However, many of these so-called strategies amount to evasion, […]

By |2025-08-01T10:51:46-04:00August 1, 2025|AD/CVD, Enforcement, Import, International Trade, penalty, Reasonable Care, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)|0 Comments
Read More

CIT Hands Down $3.4M Penalty for Duty Evasion

On July 18, 2025, the Court of International Trade (CIT) granted the government’s motion for default judgment against importer Rayson Global and its owner, Doris Cheng, for negligently failing to pay duties. 

The Case

The government’s case was filed in 2023, alleging that the importers had falsely declared that Chinese-origin goods as Thai origin to evade duties. The government asserted this false declaration avoided payment of ordinary 6% duties, Section 301 duties ranging from 10% to 25%, and 234.51% antidumping duties. 

The government asked the court to impose a penalty for negligence. The penalty amount is twice the loss of revenue or the domestic value, whichever is lower. After the importer failed to answer the complaint (a huge mistake), the U.S. moved for summary judgment.

The CIT granted the government’s motion and ordered the importer to pay a nearly $3.4 million penalty as well as all unpaid duties, taxes, and cash deposits on the unliquidated entries in question.

Duty Evasion is on the Rise

This case is just one example of the growing incentive to cheat that comes with higher tariffs. Whether it’s through misclassifying goods, undervaluing imports, or using deceptive transshipment routes, some companies are turning to creative or outright illegal strategies to reduce their tariff liability.

These incentives have even contributed to the emergence of a cottage industry of “tariff reduction” companies that suggest ways to cut import costs. However, many of these so-called strategies amount […]

By |2025-07-25T10:16:59-04:00July 25, 2025|Enforcement, Import, International Trade, penalty, Reasonable Care, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)|0 Comments
Read More
This website uses cookies and third party services. By continuing to use our website, you agree to the Privacy Policy. OK
Skip to content
Go to Top