Executive Summary
A newly published resource guide underscores that the U.S. government has significantly elevated its posture on trade fraud enforcement, signaling a more aggressive and coordinated approach that importers are already starting to see. Published jointly by the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security on July 14, 2026, “A Resource Guide to Trade Fraud Enforcement” reframes customs compliance as a matter of economic and national security rather than a purely administrative function, extends the government’s stated enforcement focus well beyond the importer of record, and—drawing an explicit comparison several law firms have made to the influential FCPA Resource Guide DOJ and the SEC published roughly fifteen years ago—may function as a benchmark authorities use in pursuing future enforcement actions. For companies engaged in international trade, the message is clear: customs compliance is now treated as a core corporate risk area with potentially significant civil, criminal, and reputational consequences. This analysis builds on our earlier look at DOJ’s broader trade fraud enforcement buildout, examining what the guide actually says and what importers should do to prepare.

What the New Trade Fraud Enforcement Guide Means for Importers

(新版贸易欺诈执法指南对进口商意味着什么)

1 · What’s New: Trade Fraud Framed as a National Security Issue

A Deliberate Reframing

Historically, customs enforcement focused primarily on revenue collection and administrative compliance. The new guide reframes trade fraud as a threat to economic security, domestic manufacturing competitiveness, public health and safety, supply chain integrity, human rights, and national security. It repeatedly emphasizes that false declarations, tariff evasion, forced labor imports, and misrepresented goods can fund adversarial interests, undermine domestic industries, and introduce dangerous products into U.S. commerce.

The Government’s Own Framing

The guide itself states that those involved in importing goods into the United States have always had a duty of care and candor to ensure they are abiding by trade laws, and that corporations must continually adjust their compliance measures to reflect the complexities of the regulatory climate and their evolving supply chains. Its most consequential line for corporate compliance officers may be this: “The era when a company can claim ignorance of its upstream partners’ activities is over.”

Why This Matters: several law firms reviewing the guide have drawn a direct comparison to the FCPA Resource Guide that DOJ and the SEC published jointly almost fifteen years ago—a document that fundamentally reshaped how companies structured anti-corruption compliance programs. The trade fraud guide appears designed to serve a similar function: a benchmark against which DOJ and DHS themselves, and eventually courts and regulators, may assess whether a company’s trade compliance program adequately addressed the government’s stated enforcement priorities.

2 · Federal Agency Collaboration: A Whole-of-Government Approach

The guide articulates a more coordinated enforcement strategy in which U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Homeland Security Investigations, Department of Justice litigators, and other federal agencies intend to work together on trade fraud investigations and prosecutions. This reflects a shift toward a whole-of-government approach in which criminal prosecutions, False Claims Act cases, administrative penalties, forfeiture actions, forced labor sanctions, money laundering investigations, and even securities law remedies may be deployed in parallel or in combination against companies and individuals involved in trade fraud.

This coordinated model connects directly to the institutional buildout we examined in our earlier analysis of DOJ’s National Fraud Enforcement Division: the guide functions as the practical playbook for how the Global Trade and Commerce Enforcement Section, the Trade Fraud Task Force, CBP, and HSI intend to work together going forward.

3 · More Aggressive Action: What CBP and DOJ Are Signaling

CBP’s Expanded Toolkit

Importers should expect more aggressive use of CBP’s statutory authorities allowing the agency to recover unpaid duties; impose substantial penalties for negligence, gross negligence, or fraud; and penalize parties that import or facilitate the importation of merchandise contrary to law. CBP is also increasing the use of bond claims and liquidated damages, audits, restrictions on in-bond privileges, and maximum penalties for persistent compliance failures—an expanded administrative toolkit that the guide confirms is being deployed under Executive Order 14411, “Strengthening Customs Enforcement,” signed June 3, 2026.

Criminal Exposure

Criminal prosecutions may be pursued in cases involving intentional misconduct, where penalties can range from fines and forfeiture of merchandise to lengthy prison sentences. Notably, federal law reaches past the border transaction itself: under the second paragraph of 18 U.S.C. § 545, anyone who receives, conceals, buys, or sells goods known to have been imported contrary to law faces the same criminal exposure—up to 20 years—as the importer of record. The guide cites prosecutions of resellers who never touched a customs form.

False Claims Act Exposure

FCA cases in particular can result in treble damages. Knowingly avoiding or decreasing customs duties owed to the government can support a “reverse false claim” action under the False Claims Act, and the statute’s knowledge standard reaches deliberate ignorance and reckless disregard, not just actual knowledge. Qui tam relators can file suit under seal, and DOJ’s Corporate Whistleblower Program accepts trade fraud referrals—meaning a company’s own logistics or compliance staff may become the government’s first witness in a future case.

Liability Extends Down the Chain

The guide makes clear that liability may not stop at the importer of record. Enforcement authorities intend to investigate and, where appropriate, pursue customs brokers, logistics providers, wholesalers, resellers, downstream distributors, and corporate executives. Companies can no longer assume that responsibility ends once goods clear customs.

A concrete illustration: in April 2026, Boise Cascade pleaded guilty and received a $6.3 million criminal fine for Lacey Act violations involving illegally imported birch plywood—not as the importer of record, but as a downstream buyer. Willful blindness, not direct participation, was the standard prosecutors applied.

4 · Company Responsibilities: What the Government Now Expects

While the longstanding responsibility of importers to exercise reasonable care is reinforced, the guide also makes clear that the government expects companies to audit supply chains, verify supplier representations, identify transshipment risks, investigate country-of-origin claims, monitor forced labor exposure, and maintain effective internal controls. Willful blindness, reckless disregard, and inadequate oversight may be treated as evidence supporting enforcement actions.

Key Shifts in Enforcement Emphasis

Although many of the enforcement authorities discussed in the guide already existed, the document represents a notable policy shift in several respects:

5 · Enforcement Priorities: Typologies and Focus Areas

Trade Fraud Typologies

The guide identifies common types of trade fraud that draw enforcement attention, including:

• False product and origin declarations
• Transshipment schemes
• Classification fraud
• Undervaluation
• Free trade agreement abuse
• Evasion of antidumping and countervailing duties
• Shell company structures
• Drawback fraud
• Forged product certifications
• Port shopping after import refusals
• Bypassing prior notice requirements for food imports
• Illegal timber and wildlife laundering
• Adulterated drugs and medical devices

Forced Labor

The guide makes clear that forced labor enforcement is not limited to shipment detentions and import bans; criminal liability may also apply to companies and individuals that knowingly benefit from forced labor or act in reckless disregard of such practices, reaching from the importer down to the retailer under federal peonage statutes. Importers should therefore view forced labor compliance as both a customs issue and a potential criminal law risk.

Worth noting: the related Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force has expanded its list of high-priority sectors from an original four to twelve—adding aluminum, polyvinyl chloride, seafood, steel, copper, lithium, caustic soda, and jujubes to the previously identified apparel, cotton, silica-based products, and tomatoes. Importers with supply chains touching any of these sectors should expect a materially higher level of scrutiny.

Health and Safety Compliance

The government is equally focused on imports regulated by partner agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Department of Agriculture, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. False certifications, failure to report product defects, and inaccurate declarations involving regulated products may trigger both customs and criminal enforcement.

6 · What Importers Should Do Now

To prepare for the broader enforcement approach outlined in the guide, importers should strongly consider taking the following actions:

1. Use the Guide as a Compliance Benchmark

Conduct compliance reviews regarding issues like country-of-origin determinations, classification, valuation, AD/CVD exposure, duty calculations, free trade agreement qualification procedures, and partner government agency requirements—measured directly against the guide’s stated priorities.

2. Strengthen Supply Chain Due Diligence

Map critical suppliers, verify manufacturing locations, review subcontractor networks, assess transshipment risks, evaluate forced labor exposure (with particular attention to the twelve now-designated high-priority sectors), and document supplier verification procedures.

3. Elevate Trade Compliance to Enterprise Risk Management

Move trade compliance from an operational function to an enterprise risk-management issue with executive and board-level visibility—mirroring how many companies restructured anti-corruption oversight after the FCPA Resource Guide’s publication.

4. Ensure Broker Due Diligence

Confirm that customs brokers conduct appropriate due diligence, escalate discrepancies, maintain required records, and follow documented compliance procedures. This is especially relevant in light of the CTPAT-related broker vetting obligations we examined in our earlier analysis of Executive Order 14411’s impact on customs brokers.

5. Prepare for Regulatory Inquiries

Ensure that five-year record retention requirements are met, supply chain documentation is readily accessible, internal investigation procedures are in place, and compliance training is current and documented. Start with the records that matter most: entry filings, broker communications, origin certificates, and purchase invoices form the evidentiary backbone of nearly every customs fraud investigation.

6. Consult Counsel on Voluntary Disclosure

Consult counsel regarding whether identified issues warrant voluntary disclosure, which could reduce liabilities and exposure relative to a government-initiated investigation.

7 · Conclusion: A Statement of Intent, Not New Authority

While the guide does not create any new legal authorities, it should certainly be viewed as a statement of intent to prosecute trade misconduct with increased intensity, and as a roadmap for future enforcement actions. For importers, customs brokers, manufacturers, distributors, and logistics providers, robust trade compliance is no longer simply a regulatory requirement—it is now a strategic business imperative.

The Bottom Line

For companies engaged in international trade, the message is clear: customs compliance is no longer viewed simply as an administrative function. It is now treated as a core corporate risk area with potentially significant civil, criminal, and reputational consequences. As such, importers should strongly consider shifting from a reactive to a proactive stance on trade compliance issues—benchmarking their programs against the guide’s stated priorities now, rather than after an investigation begins.

If your organization would benefit from a compliance program review measured against the government’s current trade fraud enforcement benchmarks, our trade compliance team is available to help you assess your exposure and strengthen your supply chain due diligence practices.

This analysis reflects “A Resource Guide to Trade Fraud Enforcement,” jointly published by the U.S. Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security on July 14, 2026, and related public commentary through August 2026. The guide does not create new legal authorities and does not limit the enforcement intentions or litigating positions of DOJ, DHS, or any other U.S. government agency. Importers should consult with trade counsel and compliance professionals for guidance tailored to their specific circumstances.