TITLE: Tariff Evasion Is Now a DOJ Enforcement Priority — What Importers Need to Know
On 1 October 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) made tariff evasion, unlawful importation and forced-labour-related trade fraud a corporate enforcement priority. That same week, officials confirmed that a prior disclosure filed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) does not, by itself, count as a voluntary self-disclosure to DOJ.
For an international seller or e-commerce brand importing into the United States, your customs compliance file is now also a potential criminal-risk file. Information provided through your freight forwarder, customs broker or supplier can affect both your civil exposure to CBP and any separate DOJ assessment.
Know what DOJ will weigh before a trade issue escalates
Directive 26-12 sets out four corporate enforcement priorities:
- Healthcare fraud and related conduct.
- Fraud affecting public trust, government procurement and public functions.
- Significant evasion of internal or external revenue.
- Fraud involving tariff evasion, imports of goods or services, or forced labour.
For companies, the directive says prosecutors must place great weight on ten non-exhaustive factors when considering charges or negotiating agreements. In plain English, the risk picture can worsen where there is:
- Management knowledge of or involvement in the conduct.
- Concealment from government agencies or auditors, or obstruction of oversight.
- Conduct that continues for three years or more.
- Threats to public safety, security or military readiness.
- Substantial harm to a taxpayer-funded programme or government function.
- Harm affecting multiple taxpayer-funded programmes or government functions.
- Activity spanning three or more federal districts.
- Financial harm to 25 or more victims, or losses of $25 million or more.
- Funds moved to support foreign adversaries.
- Immigration offences.
These factors are not automatic findings of wrongdoing. They are signals of what prosecutors may consider. The DOJ’s Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy, dated 10 March 2026, is a separate policy framework; a disclosure that goes only to a regulator may not meet DOJ’s requirements.
Check origin first: transshipment can hide the real risk
Country-of-origin fraud, including transshipment, was the leading pattern in trade fraud cases over the past year, accounting for more than half. Routing goods through another country does not necessarily change their origin. If records or declarations suggest that goods were made somewhere other than where they were actually produced, CBP may examine the entries and the surrounding evidence.
This matters across the United States. Entries routed through Los Angeles / Long Beach, Newark or Chicago O’Hare can attract scrutiny, and an inquiry may involve CBP field offices beyond the port where a shipment arrived. DOJ is based in Washington D.C.; a company’s own records and conduct may matter regardless of where the goods entered.
Nor is exposure necessarily limited to the importer of record. Under 18 U.S.C. § 545, a person who knowingly receives, buys, sells or facilitates the sale of merchandise after importation, knowing it was imported contrary to law, may face liability. Earlier in 2026, a company that was not the importer of record pleaded guilty and paid a $6,382,000 fine over imported plywood. The statute can also expose goods to forfeiture. Liability depends on the legal elements and evidence; simply being connected to an import does not establish guilt.
Choose the disclosure route carefully
A CBP prior disclosure under 19 CFR 162.74 is a civil customs tool. It can help address a good-faith classification or valuation error and may reduce civil penalties under 19 U.S.C. § 1592. It does not, on its own, protect you from a DOJ case or qualify as a voluntary self-disclosure to DOJ.
Use this decision path:
- Identify the issue and preserve the records. Don’t edit or delete relevant documents or messages.
- Get qualified counsel involved before filing. A CBP submission and a DOJ disclosure serve different purposes and can affect separate proceedings.
- Assess both routes. DOJ remarks suggest that if an internal review would lead you to discipline or terminate an employee over the conduct, that is a signal to evaluate a DOJ voluntary self-disclosure alongside any CBP prior disclosure.
This is a legal decision, not a routine bookkeeping correction. Do not treat one filing as a substitute for the other.
Treat every Form 28 as a request to examine the wider process
CBP is shifting toward a stronger compliance focus and using data analytics to identify classification, valuation and origin anomalies. That is driving more CF-28 Requests for Information.
A Form 28 is not a penalty notice. It is a request for information. But your response can expose wider inconsistencies. CBP expects an applicable determination to be used across analogous entries, not only the entry named in the request.
Read the form carefully: the response date on the notice controls. Responses are typically due within 30 days of the form date. If you need more time, request an extension before the deadline lapses. Collect the entry records, invoices and supporting documents, answer each question fully, and keep a copy of what you submit.
Worked example: one mismatch across 40 entries
Imagine an Amazon FBA seller ships products from Shenzhen to a third-party warehouse in Los Angeles. The commercial invoice shows a value of $10,000 per shipment. The freight forwarder enters $6,000 and lists a different country of origin. CBP analytics identify the mismatch across 40 entries.
For illustration only, assume the correct duty rate is 15% and apply it to the value difference. The invoice-to-entry gap is $4,000 per shipment, or $160,000 across 40 entries. On that assumed rate, the estimated duty shortfall is $600 per entry, or $24,000 total. Actual duty depends on the goods’ classification, origin and applicable rates; other duties, taxes and fees are not included in this example.
If a civil violation is established, potential penalty ceilings under section 1592 can depend on the degree of culpability and the domestic value of the goods. On these assumptions, the loss-based ceilings could be up to $48,000 for negligence or $96,000 for gross negligence, subject to the statutory limits and the facts. These figures are not automatic assessments. If the evidence supports a criminal case, there may also be forfeiture risk for the goods.
The right fix is not to ask the forwarder to amend one entry and move on. Reconcile all 40
