New DOJ-DHS Trade Enforcement Guidance: What Companies Need to Know

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on July 14, 2026, issued the Resource Guide to Trade Fraud Enforcement (Resource Guide), the first comprehensive statement of DOJ's enforcement approach to customs and trade fraud. The Resource Guide follows a DOJ announcement that the Trade Fraud Task Force – a joint DOJ-DHS effort – has surpassed $1 billion in combined civil and criminal recoveries in less than one year, which DOJ described as reflecting "a fundamental shift" toward rigorous criminal prosecution and civil False Claims Act (FCA) enforcement. Below are the key takeaways for companies engaged in international trade.

Candor Is Now a Legal Requirement

The Resource Guide frames trade fraud as a threat to national security and a core pillar of the American economy, driven by three imperatives: fiscal health, public safety and human dignity. It states plainly that candor toward the government is a legal requirement, not merely a best practice – a notable shift from DOJ's prior position of incentivizing voluntary disclosure. Liability reaches beyond importers to anyone who knowingly receives, conceals, buys, sells or facilitates the movement of illegally imported goods. This posture is reinforced by Executive Order (EO) 14411, "Strengthening Customs Enforcement" (June 3, 2026), which directs the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to maximize recovery through liquidated damages claims, in-bond restrictions, increased audits and maximum broker penalties. Clients should expect audit activity and broker scrutiny to intensify.

The Customs Entry Process and Layered Tariffs

Importers of Record (IORs) bear ultimate legal responsibility for the accuracy of customs entries and cannot contract this obligation away, even where a broker is involved. Entries proceed in two steps – Form 3461 (initial release) and Form 7501 (financial settlement, filed within 10 working days) – and CBP calculates duty liability based on three data points: Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) classification, country of origin and entered value. IORs must also satisfy requirements from partner agencies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Compounding this complexity, a single good may face a standard duty, Section 301 tariff, Section 232 national security duty and antidumping/countervailing duties (AD/CVD) simultaneously, the latter of which can exceed 600 percent of declared value. Companies should expect a materially higher risk of unintentional noncompliance absent proactive tariff engineering and classification review.

Enforcement Tools: Civil, Criminal and Beyond

• Administrative: CBP enforces tariff evasion and unlawful imports through Title 19, Sections 1592 and 1595a(b), which allow for the collection of unpaid duties and civil penalties.
• Civil: The FCA imposes treble damages and per-claim penalties, and its qui tam provisions let private citizens – including competitors and former employees – sue on the government's behalf and share in any recovery. Its knowledge standard reaches deliberate ignorance and willful blindness, not just actual knowledge.
• Criminal: Homeland Security Investigations investigates and DOJ's Global Trade and Commerce Enforcement Section (GTCES), a newly dedicated prosecutorial unit, prosecutes violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 541, 542, 545, 548, 550 and 551. Section 545, the government's most expansive tool, carries a 20-year statutory maximum and reaches conduct anywhere in the supply chain, not just initial importers.
• Other Exposure: Trade fraud can also trigger money laundering charges (transactions over $10,000 tied to proceeds of a customs violation), Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and, for public companies, securities law liability under the books-and-records and disclosure provisions.

Forced Labor Is Treated as Trade Fraud

The Resource Guide estimates 30 million people worldwide are in forced labor, generating roughly $236 billion in illegal profits annually. CBP can detain goods with a Withhold Release Order (reasonable suspicion) or seize and forfeit them through a Finding (probable cause). The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) creates a rebuttable presumption for goods connected to Xinjiang, China, or sourced from an entity on the UFLPA Entity List, requiring "clear and convincing" evidence to rebut. The list of high-priority enforcement sectors has grown from four to 12 and now includes aluminum, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), seafood, steel, copper, lithium, caustic soda and jujubes, alongside apparel, cotton, silica-based products (including polysilicon) and tomatoes. Anyone who knowingly benefits financially from forced labor anywhere in the supply chain faces prosecution, restitution and forfeiture.

16 Fraud Typologies – and the Price Tag for Getting It Wrong

The Resource Guide identifies 16 active enforcement priorities: manifest fraud, false country of origin, false HTS classification, undervaluation, AD/CVD evasion, shell company fraud, customs broker fraud, drawback fraud, Federal Trade Commission fraud, port shopping, evading FDA protections, forged certifications, failure to report defects, false declaration of regulated commodities, illegal timber/wildlife trafficking and importing adulterated drugs/devices. Recent recoveries show the scale of exposure: Two aluminum companies paid $549.5 million (one of the largest AD/CVD recoveries to date) for misrepresenting extrusions as finished pallets, and a major automaker paid $365 million for using sham rear seats to misclassify cargo vans as passenger vehicles. These recoveries dwarf the cost of a proactive compliance review.

Practical Takeaways

• Enforcement Is Here to Stay: GTCES' creation and the Task Force's billion-dollar milestone signal sustained, long-term enforcement, not a passing initiative.
• Diligence Must Go Beyond Operations: Controls built for operational efficiency may not address FCA and criminal risk. Companies need processes to identify and escalate red flags before they become enforcement matters.
• Documentation Matters: Entry records must be retained for at least five years and routinely become the evidentiary backbone of enforcement actions. Documentation should demonstrate diligence, not just accuracy.
• The At-Risk Population Is Expanding: EO 14411's administrative tools and the broadened UFLPA sector list mean more companies across more industries now face heightened scrutiny.

How Holland & Knight Can Help

Given the Trump Administration's aggressive enforcement posture, companies with import operations – regardless of size or industry – should consider a proactive review of their customs compliance programs before potential issues are identified by the government.

Holland & Knight's Customs and Trade Fraud Enforcement Defense Team draws on the Firm's Customs and Products Importation, Tariff Task Force, and White Collar Defense and Investigations practices to help clients prevent, respond to, and defend against customs and trade enforcement actions. Our lawyers advise clients at every stage of the enforcement life cycle, from proactive compliance assessments and risk mitigation to internal investigations, voluntary self-disclosures, government investigations, litigation and trial. If you have questions about this alert or would like to discuss your company's compliance program, please contact the authors.

Former Holland & Knight Summer Associates Julia Rosenstein and Elizabeth Van Beuren also contributed to this alert.

Information contained in this alert is for the general education and knowledge of our readers. It is not designed to be, and should not be used as, the sole source of information when analyzing and resolving a legal problem, and it should not be substituted for legal advice, which relies on a specific factual analysis. Moreover, the laws of each jurisdiction are different and are constantly changing. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. If you have specific questions regarding a particular fact situation, we urge you to consult the authors of this publication, your Holland & Knight representative or other competent legal counsel.