Executive Summary The Department of Justice has made trade a visible priority in its False Claims Act (FCA) enforcement, and the resolutions announced over the past year give that priority concrete shape. In December 2025, Ceratizit USA LLC agreed to pay $54.4 million over alleged country-of-origin misrepresentation and misclassification of tungsten carbide imports. In May 2026, Perfectus Aluminum and affiliated companies agreed to a $549.5 million civil settlement over evaded antidumping and countervailing duties—the largest customs-related FCA resolution on record. Also in May 2026, Farjess Inc., Royal Canadian Steel Inc., and their president agreed to pay $19 million over allegedly misstated steel origin. Under the FCA, knowingly avoiding an obligation to pay duties can expose an importer to up to three times the unpaid amount plus penalties, and private whistleblowers may bring cases on the government’s behalf. This analysis reviews the legal framework, the enforcement record, the tools available to DHS and CBP, and the compliance considerations these developments raise for importers and their service providers.

False Claims Act Enforcement and Customs Duties: What Recent DOJ Resolutions Show for Importers

(《虚假索赔法》与海关关税执法：美国司法部近期和解案对进口商的启示)

1 · The Legal Framework: How the False Claims Act Reaches Customs Duties

Two Provisions Relevant to Importers

The False Claims Act, codified at 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733, is best known for healthcare and government-contracting cases, but its text is broad enough to reach unpaid customs duties. Two provisions of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1) matter most to importers:

• Subparagraph (B) — knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim
• Subparagraph (G) — the so-called “reverse false claims” provision: knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to an obligation to pay or transmit money to the Government, or knowingly concealing or knowingly and improperly avoiding or decreasing such an obligation

Import duties are a money obligation owed to the United States, which is why a false statement on an entry—about origin, classification, or value—can be pleaded as a reverse false claim.

Treble Damages and Penalties

A defendant found liable under the FCA faces damages of up to three times the amount the government lost, plus per-claim civil penalties. Because duties can accumulate across many entries over several years, the multiplier can produce exposure well beyond the duties themselves.

The Qui Tam Mechanism

The FCA’s qui tam provisions (31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)) allow a private party—known as a relator—to file suit on behalf of the United States and receive a share of any recovery, generally 15 to 30 percent. In customs matters, relators have included a competitor trade association, individuals, and a customs broker who worked with the importer, as the cases below illustrate.

2 · DOJ’s Stated Priorities: From 2025 Signals to a Dedicated Task Force

The February 2025 Signal

In a February 20, 2025 speech at the Federal Bar Association’s annual qui tam conference, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch said DOJ would enforce the FCA aggressively and identified “illegal foreign trade practices”, including customs duty evasion, as an area of focus. Practitioner commentary at the time highlighted undervaluation, misclassification, and false country-of-origin statements as the principal fact patterns.

The Trade Fraud Task Force

On August 29, 2025, DOJ launched a cross-agency Trade Fraud Task Force drawing on the Civil and Criminal Divisions and the Department of Homeland Security. DOJ has described its purpose as pursuing enforcement actions against parties who evade tariffs and other duties, as well as smugglers of prohibited goods, and it has invited whistleblowers to use the FCA’s qui tam provisions. DOJ press releases from 2026 also reference the administration’s broader Task Force to Eliminate Fraud.

3 · The Enforcement Record: Three Resolutions

The table below summarizes three customs-related FCA resolutions announced by DOJ between December 2025 and May 2026. Each resolved allegations only; none involved a determination of liability.

Ceratizit: Origin, Classification, and Marking

DOJ alleged that from August 2020 through March 2024, Ceratizit knowingly told CBP that Chinese-manufactured tungsten carbide products originated in Taiwan, and that from June 2015 through March 2024 it used an incorrect Harmonized Tariff Schedule code to reduce duties. The matter also covered allegedly unmarked merchandise. Practitioner analyses described it at the time as the largest customs-related FCA recovery to date. A relator received approximately $9.75 million of the proceeds.

Perfectus: A New Scale

The May 2026 Perfectus resolution was more than ten times larger than the Ceratizit settlement. According to practitioner analyses of the settlement, DOJ alleged that Perfectus and affiliated warehousing companies made false statements to avoid antidumping and countervailing duties on more than 2.2 million aluminum extrusions imported from China between 2011 and 2014, including by presenting spot-welded extrusions as “pallets.” The case followed a 2021 jury verdict and 2022 criminal restitution and forfeiture orders involving the same conduct, and the civil settlement credits amounts recovered through those proceedings. As a result, the amount ultimately collected depends on contingencies in the agreement and overlaps with amounts already owed under the criminal resolutions. The settlement also ended three qui tam suits filed in 2015, 2017, and 2018, including one brought by an industry trade association.

Farjess and Royal Canadian Steel: Origin Claims and a Broker Relator

DOJ alleged that from May 2019 through January 2025, the companies and their president avoided duties by misrepresenting the origin of flat-rolled steel. The case arose from a qui tam suit filed by a customs broker who had worked with the importer, who will receive approximately $3.61 million.

⚠️ Reading the Record Carefully: Commentary summarizing this period often describes the penalties as “tens of millions of dollars.” The Ceratizit and Farjess resolutions fit that description, but the Perfectus resolution is more than half a billion dollars on a face-amount basis—though, as noted above, its actual recovery overlaps with criminal restitution.

4 · The Enforcement Toolkit: How Matters Begin

Beyond DOJ, the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection have several tools for examining an importer’s records. Among those commonly cited are:

• Formal investigations, which may run in parallel with civil or criminal proceedings
• CBP Form 28 (Request for Information), used to ask an importer for documents or explanations about specific entries
• CBP Form 29 (Notice of Action), used to notify an importer of a proposed action such as a classification or value change
• Risk assessment surveys and compliance audits, which review an importer’s practices more broadly

Trade press reporting indicates that use of these tools has been increasing, though readers should treat that as directional rather than a precise count.

Parallel Civil and Criminal Exposure

The Perfectus matter illustrates that civil FCA exposure can coexist with criminal proceedings arising from the same conduct. Practitioner commentary on the DOJ Task Force structure notes that resolving a CBP administrative inquiry does not necessarily foreclose parallel civil or criminal scrutiny.

5 · Implementation Considerations for Importers and Service Providers

The following considerations reflect common themes in practitioner commentary and in the fact patterns of the DOJ resolutions above. They are informational rather than prescriptive, and the appropriate approach will vary by organization.

Areas the Recent Cases Touch

The enforcement record to date concentrates on a small number of recurring subjects:

• Country of origin — including transshipment through third countries and origin statements that do not match where goods were manufactured
• Classification — use of an HTS code that carries a lower duty rate than the correct one
• Valuation — undervaluation on entry documents
• Antidumping and countervailing duties — including characterization of goods in ways that may fall outside an order’s scope
• Marking — origin marking and associated marking duties

Internal Risk Assessments and Compliance Reviews

Many trade advisors describe an internal risk assessment or compliance review as a way to identify weaknesses in processes and procedures. Practitioners also note that such reviews can surface opportunities to lower duties and other costs, such as overlooked exclusions, correct classifications that carry lower rates, or duty-recovery mechanisms, so the exercise is not only defensive.

Documentation and Supplier Representations

Because FCA liability turns on knowledge, organizations often look at how supplier origin and value representations are collected, verified, and retained, and at how discrepancies are escalated internally.

Broker and Third-Party Relationships

The Farjess matter began with a suit by a customs broker. That is a reminder that parties who handle an importer’s entries, including brokers, forwarders, and warehouse operators, may have visibility into entry data and independent obligations of their own.

6 · Conclusion: A Sustained Enforcement Pattern

The resolutions announced between December 2025 and May 2026 show the FCA being applied to customs duties across different industries, different alleged schemes, and a wide range of settlement sizes. Taken together with DOJ’s Trade Fraud Task Force and its public invitations to whistleblowers, they suggest that customs compliance is likely to remain a feature of FCA enforcement, with exposure that can extend beyond the duties themselves.

Key Takeaways

The Bottom Line

Customs duties are now routinely treated as a subject of FCA enforcement, and the record to date spans individual importers, distributors, and affiliated warehouse operators. For organizations that import, broker, or move imported goods, a periodic review of origin, classification, and valuation practices is one way to approach that environment. Organizations that would like an outside perspective on such a review may find it worthwhile to work with a trade compliance partner familiar with both customs procedures and FCA enforcement trends.

The message is clear: the False Claims Act has become an established tool for enforcing customs duties, and the enforcement record now includes resolutions ranging from tens of millions to more than half a billion dollars.

This analysis reflects DOJ press releases announcing the Ceratizit USA LLC settlement (December 18, 2025), the Farjess Inc. / Royal Canadian Steel Inc. settlement (May 20, 2026), and the Perfectus Aluminum settlement (May 12, 2026), as well as DOJ’s announcement of the cross-agency Trade Fraud Task Force. Claims resolved by these settlements are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability. Settlement amounts reflect face-amount figures announced by DOJ; amounts actually collected may differ. Organizations should consult with customs counsel and trade compliance professionals for guidance tailored to their specific circumstances.