In years past, many companies viewed customs violations as administrative issues that could be resolved through U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Recent announcements from the Department of Justice (DOJ) signal a broader shift: Trade fraud is increasingly being investigated and prosecuted as a significant civil and criminal enforcement priority.
On July 14, DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) marked a significant milestone for their joint Trade Fraud Task Force (TFTF), with three major announcements:
- The TFTF has surpassed $1 billion in combined civil and criminal recoveries, penalties, forfeitures and publicly charged losses.
- Creation of a new prosecutorial unit, the Global Trade and Commerce Enforcement Section, within the National Fraud Enforcement Division.
- Release of the 31-page Resource Guide to Trade Fraud Enforcement (referred to as Guide), consolidating the government’s approach to customs and trade violations.
These announcements underscore a broader shift in the trade compliance landscape: Heightened enforcement and a clear expectation that private companies prioritize trade compliance alongside other core compliance functions, given the significant civil and criminal consequences of noncompliance. DOJ and DHS frame trade-related violations as national security and public safety threats, not just sources of lost revenue.
Liability Extends Beyond the IOR
Federal law reaches well beyond the importer of record (IOR). Companies that receive, purchase, sell or transport goods imported "contrary to law" may face liability if they knew—or in some cases deliberately avoided learning—that the goods entered the U.S. unlawfully. This covers third-party logistics providers, distributors and retailers with no direct role in customs filing. A company does not need to import goods directly to incur risk; and buying from a domestic wholesaler does not eliminate that risk if the wholesaler's goods entered the country improperly.
To mitigate this risk, companies should ask suppliers for origin documentation before signing a purchase agreement and include a right-to-audit clause in supplier contracts. The Guide also encourages importers to invest in and prioritize customs compliance tools, warning that “Failure to modernize oversight is a strategic risk with potentially serious or even disastrous consequences.”As new supplier diligence platforms and screening tools become more sophisticated, companies should expect the government’s expectations for reasonable care to evolve as well.
Poor Documentation Can Become Evidence
Importers, brokers and other parties must keep records for five years per 19 CFR 163.4(a). In several cases, the Guide explains that missing or inconsistent documentation became part of the evidence against the company. A weak paper trail can be perceived as concealment. Companies should keep commercial invoices, country-of-origin certifications and broker correspondence together in a centralized, auditable system rather than scattered across disparate email threads and shared drives.
Negligence Can Carry Exposure Similar to Intent
Several cases highlighted in the Guide involve companies that did not set out to commit fraud but nevertheless faced liability after ignoring or failing to investigate warning signs. The federal government applies a “willful blindness” standard, meaning a business cannot avoid liability by simply not asking questions. Rather, once CBP has initiated a pre-penalty notice, a well-documented record of reasonable care may become one of importers’ strongest tools for mitigating penalties.
Importers must train all employees who handle import documentation, not just compliance staff, to identify and escalate red flags, including abnormally low declared values, origin claims that don't match the manufacturing history or fail to meet the threshold for substantial transformation or a supplier that resists requests for documentation.
A Broker's Compliance Record Affects Your Risk
Executive Order 14411 on June 3, 2026, directs CBP to increase audits and impose maximum penalties on brokers who repeatedly represent noncompliant clients, fail to conduct due diligence or are otherwise unresponsive to CBP. Brokers also have a legal duty to flag and document suspected noncompliance for their clients. A broker with a poor enforcement history can draw extra scrutiny to every client who uses them, and a broker's written warning, if ignored, can later support the finding that the importer was negligent. Because both importers and brokers have an obligation of compliance to CBP, both should seek transparent and accountable business partners. If a broker does not allow the importer to audit filings made on its behalf, it may be worth reevaluating the relationship.
Bottom line: The Guide does not create new legal obligations, but it provides a clear roadmap for how DOJ and DHS will continue to investigate and prosecute trade violations. Companies that strengthen supplier due diligence, documentation practices, broker oversight and internal reporting today will be better positioned if their import activity is scrutinized tomorrow.
