Enforcement Archives | Customs & International Trade Law Blog

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 Jennifer Diaz|2026-10-09T11:34:59-04:00October 9, 2026|EAR, Enforcement, Export, Penalty, U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)|0 Comments

CBP eRecordation Program Update: What Rights Holders and Importers Should Watch After CBP’s August 2026 Briefing

CBP’s Intellectual Property Enforcement Branch briefed eRecordation holders on August 27, 2026 on changes to the recordation application, future expanded pre-seizure disclosure authority, pending legislation, and an enforcement posture that has to consequence delivery, especially collecting penalties for IP violations. This article updates our earlier overview of CBP’s recordation program and identifies the items that should prompt rights holders to revisit existing recordations and importers to tighten sourcing controls. If your recordation was filed more than a year ago, several of these changes affect you directly.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

CBP’s FY 2025 IPR seizures reached roughly 78 million items with an MSRP near $7.4 billion, up sharply from the FY 2024 figures.
The e-Recordation portal now validates against USPTO data. Supplemental Register marks, dead registrations, and classes not on the principal registration are rejected.
Renewals are $80 per class and ownership changes are $80. Up to three contact emails are now accepted; one should be a monitored general inbox.
CBP is piloting a Master Price List collection (national MSRP for every covered product), which will be an upload option on new applications and renewals.
The Counterfeit Notification Act, which would let CBP share shipping labels, invoices, and e-commerce platform information with rights holders and their representatives , has passed both the House and Senate but must still clear final congressional action before being […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2026-08-31T09:45:38-04:00August 31, 2026|Enforcement, International Law, International Trade|Comments Off

DHS Adds 43 Companies to the UFLPA Entity List, the Largest Expansion Yet

On July 31, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security, acting on behalf of the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force (FLETF), announced the addition of 43 companies to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List, along with technical updates to the official names of two entities already listed.

The New List

The revised list published as an appendix to a Federal Register notice on August 3, 2026, bringing the total to 187 entities, a roughly 30% increase, and the single largest expansion since the UFLPA took effect in 2022. The newly designated companies operate in DHS’s high-priority enforcement sectors, including aluminum, apparel, copper, cotton, and tomatoes and downstream products. Notably, a substantial share of the additions are headquartered outside the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR), in provinces such as Shandong, Jiangsu, and Henan, which highlights that Entity List exposure is not a question of geography alone.

CBP’s UFLPA Authority

Under the UFLPA, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) applies the UFLPA’s rebuttable presumption under 19 U.S.C. § 1307 to goods mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part by any of the newly listed entities, and, critically, to downstream merchandise that incorporates their inputs. There is no de minimis threshold: a single component, raw material, or subassembly traceable to a listed company can support detention of an entire shipment.

To secure release, an importer must either show that the UFLPA […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2026-08-28T14:31:22-04:00August 28, 2026|Enforcement, International Business, International Law, news|Comments Off

$5.15 Million Settlement Highlights Growing Customs Enforcement Under the False Claims Act

Short summary: A Taiwanese manufacturer has agreed to pay $5.15 million to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act by underpaying customs duties on imported goods. According to the Department of Justice, the company used improper customs practices to reduce duties owed to CBP, resulting in significant lost tariff revenue. The settlement underscores the federal government’s continued focus on customs enforcement and the growing use of the False Claims Act to pursue alleged duty evasion.

The U.S. Department of Justice recently announced that a Taiwan-led manufacturer agreed to pay $5.15 million to resolve allegations under the False Claims Act and related administrative claims involving customs duties owed on imported goods. While the company did not admit liability, the settlement serves as another reminder that customs compliance remains a significant enforcement priority for the federal government.

The Case – What Happened

According to the DOJ, the alleged conduct went well beyond a simple classification error. The government alleged that the company used multiple methods over several years to reduce the customs duties it owed on imports. Specifically:

Country of Origin Misrepresentations: From July 2018 through January 2022, Everlight allegedly knowingly misrepresented the country of origin on Chinese-manufactured LEDs. Everlight knew these products were manufactured in China, and then transshipped to Taiwan, before shipping them to the U.S. Everlight allegedly misrepresented to CBP that the products originated in Taiwan rather […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2026-08-10T12:28:34-04:00August 10, 2026|Enforcement, Import, International Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|Comments Off

CBP Seized Your Goods at the Border: Your Options and Next Steps

For more information on this topic, register today for our upcoming webinar: ‘Goods Detained or Seized by CBP? Understand Your Options.” Register here.

Summary: When CBP seizes imported goods at the border, importers have several options — including filing a Petition, submitting an Offer in Compromise, or pursuing court action. This article explains the difference between detention and seizure, outlines the steps importers should take immediately after receiving a CBP Seizure Notice, and describes how a customs attorney can help recover seized merchandise and prevent future seizure.

Importers expect the import process to run smoothly, but when a product is not compliant with U.S. laws and regulations, CBP is authorized under 19 CFR Part 162 and 19 CFR Part 151 to detain or seize goods upon importation.

When goods arrive at a U.S. port of entry, CBP has the authority to detain a shipment if there is a question about its admissibility or compliance with U.S. laws and regulations. Detention is not the same as seizure. It is a temporary hold that gives CBP time to review the shipment and allows the importer to respond. During this window, a customs attorney can communicate directly with CBP on your behalf, provide the documentation or legal arguments needed to resolve the issue, and work to get your goods released before the situation escalates.

If you do not respond effectively, CBP may move forward with […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2026-06-19T11:41:20-04:00June 19, 2026|Enforcement, Import, International Trade, Pre-compliance, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|Comments Off

CBP Just Rewrote the Forced Labor Rulebook: What the New Operational Guidance Means for Importers

Short summary: On June 9, 2026, CBP issued new guidance supplementing its 2022 UFLPA guidance and other resources with a single document covering every forced-labor authority it enforces. The new guidance outlines CBP’s detention and exclusion processes and gives practical guidance on how to respond.

On June 9, 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published its new Forced Labor Enforcement Operational Guidance for Importers (Publication No. 5560-0526). It is not a refresh. It updates the June 13, 2022, UFLPA Operational Guidance for Importers and, for the first time, consolidates all forced-labor enforcement authorities CBP wields into a single 89-page reference.

That consolidation is the story. Until now, importers had to stitch together separate sources to understand how the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA), Withhold Release Orders and Findings under 19 U.S.C. § 1307, and the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) actually differ in practice. CBP has now mapped all of them — including the exact timelines, the review paths, and the documentation bar — in one place. The practical effect: ignorance of the process is no longer a defensible position.

The one-line summary every importer needs

CBP detains or excludes goods it suspects were made, wholly or in part, with forced labor — and the burden is on you to prove they weren’t, on a clock that can […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2026-06-17T10:00:55-04:00June 17, 2026|CTPAT, Enforcement, Forced Labor, Import, International Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|Comments Off

USTR Launches New Section 301 Actions: Key Developments for Importers

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has recently announced a series of significant Section 301 actions targeting a range of trade-related concerns, including intellectual property protection, forced labor, and alleged unfair trade practices. Collectively, these developments demonstrate the Administration’s continued willingness to utilize Section 301 as a tool to address perceived barriers to U.S. commerce and advance broader trade policy objectives.

Vietnam

On May 29, 2026, USTR published a Federal Register Notice announcing an investigation of Vietnam under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The investigation follows identifying Vietnam as a Priority Foreign Country in the 2026 Special 301 Report, which was published on April 30, 2026. The investigation will seek to determine whether Vietnam’s persistent failure to resolve long-standing concerns about intellectual property (IP) protection and enforcement is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce

Once the investigation is complete, Ambassador Greer will determine what, if any, responsive action should be taken to address them. Comments in this proceeding are due July 2, 2026.

Brazil

On June 2, 2026, USTR published a Federal Register Notice announcing a determination under Section 301 that certain of Brazil’s acts, policies, and practices are unreasonable and burden or restrict U.S. commerce, and are thus actionable under Section 301(b) of the Trade Act. These acts, policies, and practices include:

[…]

By Jennifer Diaz|2026-06-05T11:10:39-04:00June 5, 2026|301 INVESTIGATIONS, Enforcement, International Trade, Special 301, Tariffs, Trade Policy, U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)|Comments Off

President Trump Orders Sweeping Customs Enforcement Overhaul: Importer Eligibility, Bonds, Penalties, and Foreign IORs Face Major Changes

On June 3, 2026, President Trump signed the Executive Order “Strengthening Customs Enforcement,” directing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to overhaul the rules that govern importers of record (IORs). The accompanying White House Fact Sheet frames the Order as a truly significant tightening of importer responsibilities – higher bonds, mandatory domestic assets, a new “good standing” requirement on all importers, and sharp new limits on foreign IORs. As CBP put it in its announcement, importing into the United States “has for too long been treated as a right and not a privilege.” While the Order has set aggressive deadlines for Customs reforms, it leaves most of the operational details to future rulemaking, and several of those details could reshape day-to-day compliance.

Overview: What the Executive Order Directs

Within 180 days, the Order requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to revise importer eligibility rules under 19 U.S.C. § 1484, § 1498, and § 1623, among other authorities. The most notable changes for IORs will be:

A requirement that every IOR maintain, at all times, a minimum level of tangible domestic assets, bonding, or both — plus an increase in the minimum required bond coverage.

Expanded data and identification requirements, including anticipated import volumes, year organized, ownership and beneficial ownership disclosures, business affiliations, and […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2026-06-04T18:49:48-04:00June 4, 2026|Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|Comments Off

Three Enforcement Actions, One Message: Trade Violations Are Serious Crimes

Learn more about this topic in our upcoming webinar: From Error to Action: Filing a Prior Disclosure with CBP

As tariffs climb and global trade becomes more complex, a growing number of importers are testing the limits, or outright breaking the law, to reduce or avoid duty payments and other compliance costs. U.S. enforcement agencies, including Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), have made it clear that customs fraud will not be tolerated and is a top enforcement priority. Three recent cases illustrate the new reality for enforcement.

1. Undervaluation and the False Claims Act: $2.1 Million Settlement

An importer of fitness equipment agreed to pay $2.1 million to resolve allegations under the False Claims Act that it knowingly undervalued imported goods.

According to the government, the company knowingly declared artificially low values on its imports in order to reduce tariff obligations. The company also failed to include the cost of computer tablets incorporated into packaged equipment.

The settlement also resolves a qui tam False Claims Act case brought by a whistleblower, Mr. Greg Dahlstrom. Dahlstrom will receive $420,000 of the proceeds from the settlement.

2. Importing Precursor Chemicals: Possible Life Sentence

On April 27, 2026, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York announced the unsealing of an indictment charging two Chinese nationals with importing a methamphetamine precursor chemical into the United States with the intent […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2026-05-02T10:01:13-04:00May 2, 2026|Enforcement|Comments Off