What Every Multinational Should Know About … The New Customs Enforcement Realities (Part III): The Increasing Enforcement Activity of the Department of Justice

The landscape of tariff enforcement is intensifying, creating significant compliance, financial, and operational challenges for importers. The first installation in this series examined how rising bonds and liquidity could impact importer’s risk management profiles, while the second analyzed the impact of the new executive order on Strengthening Customs Enforcement. We now proceed to analyze the impact of the new focus of the Department of Justice on tariff underpayments, which further increases the risk of importing.

In a development that may mark a meaningful escalation in the Trump administration’s trade enforcement agenda, the Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced a major False Claims Act (FCA) settlement involving importers accused of evading antidumping and countervailing duties (AD/CVD). The settlement is an important reminder that customs enforcement risk no longer resides only with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The DOJ is increasingly positioning itself as an active player in trade enforcement, with a focus on import fraud, duty evasion, and false statements made in connection with import entries.

For importers, the message is straightforward. Companies should reassess their own customs compliance programs now, particularly in higher-risk areas such as tariff classification, valuation, country of origin, AD/CVD exposure, and supply chain representations. They should also be aware that the DOJ’s renewed focus may create opportunities for companies; those harmed by unfair competition will see opportunity to raise concerns about trade evasion by their competitors.

DOJ Has Been Building Toward This Moment

The recent settlement did not emerge in isolation. Over the past year, the DOJ has been assembling the internal structure necessary to pursue trade fraud more aggressively.

In August 2025, the DOJ created its Market, Government, and Consumer Fraud Unit within the Criminal Division. That move was widely viewed as an effort to build enforcement capacity around customs and trade-related fraud, including misclassification, undervaluation, transshipment, and relabeling schemes used to evade duties. At the time, the initiative appeared closely aligned with the Administration’s broader reliance on tariffs and other trade restrictions, including duties imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

The DOJ later reinforced that direction by launching a cross-agency Trade Task Force focused specifically on customs violations and trade evasion. The task force was described as using a range of enforcement tools, including civil False Claims Act cases, collections actions, and criminal prosecutions, and drew personnel from the DOJ’s civil and criminal components as well as the Department of Homeland Security. By early 2026, the DOJ had identified leadership for the task force and was coordinating with U.S. Attorneys’ Offices to support enforcement efforts.

Then, in April 2026, the DOJ announced the creation of a new National Fraud Enforcement Division, following broader concerns about fraud against the government. Although that move raised questions about whether trade enforcement would be absorbed into a more general anti-fraud framework, the better reading now appears to be that the DOJ intends to pursue trade fraud through multiple channels rather than narrow its focus.

The Aluminum Settlement Suggests DOJ Is Following Through

That enforcement architecture now appears to be producing visible results. On May 12, DOJ announced a $549.5 million settlement with aluminum importers to resolve civil False Claims Act allegations tied to the evasion of antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China.

According to the DOJ, the importers falsely described the imported merchandise on Customs entry documentation in order to avoid AD/CVD liability. The government alleged that the products were declared as finished aluminum pallets, when in reality they were aluminum extrusions that had been superficially modified to appear to fall outside the applicable trade remedy orders and were intended to be broken apart and resold for other downstream uses.

The size of the settlement is notable on its own, but the case is significant for broader reasons as well. It shows that the DOJ is prepared to use the False Claims Act in the customs context where alleged duty evasion is supported by false statements made to the government, including on Customs Form 7501 entry summaries and related import documentation. It also confirms that the government is willing to pursue large-scale recovery in trade cases that historically might have been viewed primarily as administrative customs matters.

Why This Matters for Importers

The settlement underscores a larger shift: import-related compliance failures may increasingly be framed not just as customs violations but as fraud against the United States. That framing brings with it much more serious consequences, including treble damages, statutory penalties, broader investigatory tools, and greater reputational exposure.

The DOJ appears particularly focused on conduct involving:

• misclassification of imported merchandise;
• undervaluation;
• false country-of-origin claims;
• transshipment and relabeling schemes;
• evasion of AD/CVD orders;
• false certifications or declarations submitted to CBP; and
• supply chain representations that cannot be substantiated.

For importers, this means that customs compliance and government-facing trade representations should be viewed through a litigation and enforcement lens, not merely an operational one.

Expect More Overlap Between Trade Enforcement and Supply Chain Enforcement

Looking ahead, the DOJ is likely to use a broader set of legal tools to address trade misconduct, especially where the underlying conduct touches China, Southeast Asia, or other supply chains already associated with heightened enforcement risk. In addition to more traditional duty evasion cases, companies should expect increasing attention to statutes such as the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) and potentially other laws aimed at forced labor, trafficking, and prohibited imports.

This matters because modern trade enforcement often turns on statements made to the government. For example, importers responding to UFLPA scrutiny may be required to provide detailed certifications and supply chain tracing information to CBP. Where those submissions are inaccurate, inconsistent, or unsupported, they may create the kind of evidentiary record that can support broader fraud allegations. In that sense, forced labor enforcement and trade fraud enforcement are becoming more closely linked.

Competitor Complaints and Whistleblower Risk Are Also Rising

Another important consequence of the DOJ’s posture is that companies harmed by trade evasion may have more incentive to act. If a competitor appears to be gaining an unfair advantage by avoiding duties or making false import declarations, there may now be a more receptive audience within the government for well-supported allegations.

In addition, the False Claims Act creates the possibility of private whistleblower suits, which can allow a private party to bring allegations on behalf of the government and share in any recovery. That creates an additional risk layer for importers, particularly where customs compliance issues are known internally by employees, former employees, suppliers, or competitors with access to relevant facts.

Practical Takeaways

Importers should consider taking several concrete steps now in light of the DOJ’s growing trade fraud focus and the increasing overlap between customs enforcement, supply chain enforcement, and False Claims Act risk.

Review classification, valuation, origin, and AD/CVD compliance controls. Companies should revisit the core customs determinations that drive duty liability, including tariff classification, customs valuation, country of origin, and exposure to antidumping and countervailing duties. This review should focus not only on whether the company has a formal process but also on whether the process is sufficiently documented, consistently applied, and updated when sourcing patterns, product design, or tariff treatment changes. Areas that involve engineering distinctions, mixed-origin inputs, first sale valuation, assists, transfer pricing, or possible AD/CVD scope questions should receive particular attention.

• Assess whether import declarations and supporting records accurately reflect the merchandise and supply chain. The DOJ’s recent actions underscore that entry summaries, commercial invoices, packing lists, certifications, and other government-facing trade documents can become the basis for fraud allegations if they are materially inaccurate. Importers should confirm that their entry data matches the actual product, use, composition, origin, and transaction structure, and that internal records support the representations being made to CBP. Companies should also review whether product descriptions used in import documentation are overly generalized, outdated, or inconsistent with technical specifications and commercial reality.
• Evaluate UFLPA and other forced labor-related representations for consistency and evidentiary support. Companies importing from higher-risk jurisdictions or sectors should assess whether their supply chain tracing, supplier certifications, affidavits, origin records, and due diligence files would withstand government scrutiny. This is particularly important where importers have made, or may need to make, affirmative statements to CBP regarding forced labor, source materials, factory relationships, or production tracing. Any gap between what the company knows internally and what is being represented externally creates potential enforcement risk.
• Investigate internal complaints or red flags involving customs reporting before they become external issues. Internal audit findings, broker questions, employee complaints, sourcing irregularities, and inconsistencies in invoices or origin documentation should not be treated as routine operational noise. In the current environment, those issues can become the basis for a whistleblower complaint, a government inquiry, or a False Claims Act theory if left unresolved. Companies should ensure that customs and trade concerns are escalated appropriately, investigated promptly, and remediated where necessary, with attention to whether prior disclosures or corrective filings should be considered.
• Consider whether competitors may be engaging in actionable trade evasion. Companies that compete against importers benefiting from suspiciously low pricing, implausible origin claims, unusual transshipment routes, or apparent duty avoidance should evaluate whether those practices warrant further investigation. In an environment where the DOJ and other agencies are actively looking for trade enforcement leads, well-supported allegations of evasion may receive attention. Businesses harmed by unfairly traded imports should consider the range of available options, including administrative and litigation-related avenues, depending on the facts.
• Prepare for a more coordinated enforcement environment involving CBP, DOJ, DHS, and potentially private whistleblowers. Customs issues that once might have been handled as routine administrative matters may now be viewed through a broader fraud-enforcement lens. Importers should assume that entry practices, certifications, supply chain representations, and duty determinations may be examined not only by CBP but also by the DOJ, Homeland Security Investigations, and private relators under the False Claims Act. Trade compliance programs should therefore be evaluated with cross-agency enforcement risk in mind, including document retention, internal reporting channels, management oversight, and legal review of sensitive customs positions.

The DOJ’s recent aluminum settlement is a significant signal that trade fraud enforcement is becoming more active, more coordinated, and more consequential. The government appears prepared to use the False Claims Act and other tools to pursue importers that evade duties through false statements, misleading declarations, or unlawful supply chain practices. For companies engaged in cross-border trade, this is a good time to reassess customs compliance, supply chain representations, and exposure to competitor-driven or whistleblower-driven enforcement.

Would you like more practical compliance tips like these? The Foley International Trade & National Security Team is monitoring all international trade, enforcement, and compliance developments, which we post as they occur on our Tariff & International Trade Resources blog. Click Here To Register for our email list to receive future emails and practical international regulatory compliance tips, including our biweekly What Every Multinational Should Know articles.

Our white paper on Managing Import and Tariff Risks During a Trade War outlines a 12-step plan to provide practical steps to help importers navigate the tariff and international trade risks in the current tariff and trade environment, while the companion white paper on Managing Supply Chain Integrity Risks provides practical advice to deal with heightened supply chain risks pertaining to goods imported into the United States, including the increasing use of detentions by Customs.