Full list of exporters here. 

Import volume here.  

Background on AD Investigations 

Antidumping duty (“AD”) is brought jointly by the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC”) and the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”). AD investigations are triggered when a domestic industry alleges that it has been injured by competing imports of particular goods from specific countries being sold at less than a fair value. The domestic industry initiating the investigation is known as the petitioner, while the foreign industry participating in the investigation is known as the respondent. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise covered by these investigations is all forms of polytetramethylene ether glycol (“PTMEG”).  

The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under the following subheadings: 3907.29.00 and 2932.11.00.   

Full scope here.

Next Steps 

The Commerce Department will determine whether to initiate the investigations within 20 days. The USITC will reach a preliminary determination of material injury or threat of material injury within 45 days. 

As with any proceeding, participation is very important to protect your rights. We urge anyone who imports Polytetramethylene Ether Glycol from China, South Korea, Taiwan, or Vietnam to pay close attention to this case and to ensure that all appropriate steps are taken to mitigate any damage. 

AD investigations can result in determinations adverse to respondent interests for years that could effectively prohibit access to the U.S. market. Failure to effectively participate in investigations can put exporters and importers at a significant disadvantage. 

Diaz Trade Law will continue to monitor this case and share updates.

For more information or questions, get in touch with us at 305-456-3830 or info@diaztradelaw.com. 

What OFAC Defines as a “Sham Transaction” 

Sham transactions occur when blocked persons “give up their property on paper only,” while continuing to benefit from or control the asset. These arrangements often involve: 

• Proxies, straw owners, or front companies acting on behalf of sanctioned individuals. 
• Opaque legal structures, including multi‑layered LLCs, partnerships, or trusts. 
• Transfers to family members or close associates who may serve as facilitators. 
• Commercially unreasonable transfers, such as those lacking adequate consideration. 
• Continued use or control of the asset by the blocked person after the purported transfer. 

Pro Tip: Look beyond legal formalities and identify the economic realities of the transaction. 

Red Flags Identified by OFAC 

The advisory outlines several indicators that a transaction may be a sham designed to evade sanctions. These include: 

• Transfers with no legitimate business purpose or to individuals lacking relevant expertise. 
• Complex corporate structures in high‑risk jurisdictions. 
• Inconsistent or incomplete documentation surrounding the transfer. 
• Timing of the transfer, particularly if it occurs close to a sanctions designation. 
• Evasive or vague responses from intermediaries when questioned about ownership or control. 

Pro Tip: No single factor is determinative; look at the totality of the circumstances instead. 

If your organization needs assistance strengthening sanctions compliance, conducting due diligence, or reviewing internal controls, contact Diaz Trade Law today! 

Learn more: 

• Bloomberg Law: Submitting a Voluntary Self-Disclosure to OFAC 
• Bloomberg Law Feature: Voluntary Self-Disclosures: Recent Guidance From BIS, OFAC & DOJ 
• Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) Sanctions Compliance 

Jennifer Diaz, President, Diaz Trade Law
Amber Pirson, Attorney, Diaz Trade Law

On April 2, 2026, the President issued a proclamation strengthening Section 232 actions to adjust imports of aluminum, steel, and copper, continuing to cite national security concerns and the need to reinforce domestic metals industries. 

Key elements include: a tiered tariff structure and some products exempt from Sec. 232 tariffs, effective at 12:01 am on April 6, 2026; and manufacturing drawback claims.  

Generally, tariffs will be assessed to the full value of imported products, “regardless of their metal content,” with reduced rates for certain products from the United Kingdom (UK) and the same 200% ad valorem duty for subject metal articles from Russia. 

• Aluminum and steel articles, most copper articles, and certain derivative articles of aluminum and steel…  
  • 50%, unless either the 25% or 10% rates listed below can apply. 
    • 25% for UK products, the aluminum content of which is composed entirely of aluminum that was smelted or most recently cast in the UK, or the steel content of which is composed entirely of steel that was melted and poured in the UK. 
    • 10% for derivative articles, steel or copper content, when the metal content was smelted and cast in the U.S. 
• For certain copper and aluminum or steel derivative articles (Annex I-B)…  
  • 25%, unless either the 15% or 10% rates listed below can apply. 
    • 15% for aluminum or steel products of the UK, if smelted and cast or melted and poured in the UK. 
    • 10% for steel or copper content, when the metal content was smelted and cast in the U.S. 
• For imports listed in Annex III to this proclamation, and entered between April 6, 2026, and December 31, 2027… 
  • Rate determined by the product’s current ad valorem duty under Column 1, unless the 10% or 25% rate listed below can apply. For Column 1 duties < 15%, the additional Sec. 232 duty must be such that the sum of both is 15%. For Column 1 duties ≥ 15%, the additional Sec. 232 duty is 0%.  
    • 10% for derivative articles or steel content, when the former was smelted and cast in the US or when the latter was melted and poured in the US. \
    • 25% for imports from trading partners without normal trading relations with the U.S. (i.e., Cuba, North Korea, Russia, Belarus).  
• For imports listed in Annex III to this proclamation, and entered on or after January 1, 2028… 
  • The rate schedule applied to products listed in Annex I-B 
• Additional product-specific rules for articles or derivatives of more than one metal.  

Products Exempt from Sec. 232 Steel and Aluminum Derivatives 

• Certain items under the following chapter headings, including certain motorcycle parts: 2, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 73, 84, 85, 87, 94, and 95. (Annex II) 

Manufacturing drawback claims are available for articles that meet the following four criteria: 

• Those classifiable in an HTS listed in Annex I-B or Annex III, or later determined by the Secretary and the Trade Representative; 
• Not subject to an antidumping or countervailing duty order; 
• A product of Trade Agreement Partners (TAP), which is composed of the United Kingdom, the European Union, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Canada, and any trading partner with which the United States concludes a final Agreement on Reciprocal Trade; and 
• The aluminum and copper were smelted and cast, and the steel was melted and poured in a TAP country.  

On April 3, 2026, CBP issued guidance providing instructions for submitting entries to CBP on certain steel, aluminum, and copper articles and their derivatives. See here.

See annexes here. 

View the guide for navigating new Chapter 99 Headings here. 

Learn more: 

• Section 232 Valuation in a Gray Area: What Importers Need to Know 
• ICYMI: BIS Initiates 232 Investigations of UAS and Polysilicon Imports 
• Reminder: New Section 232 Duties on Certain Steel and Aluminum Products from Mexico 
• Tariffs and Trade Deals – Comprehensive Resource 

The CIT Order

In the order, Judge Eaton clearly stated that the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), the CIT has national jurisdiction and the ability to issue a broad order, that he is the judge to whom all IEEPA refunds have been assigned, and that he views the facts and law as clear. It is not clear whether he is also ordering the refunds for everyone else not in court, which will unquestionably be further litigated. 

We note that in response to written questions from the court, U.S. Customs and Border Protection stated that they were continuing to liquidate entries with IEEPA duties if they were deposited at the time of entry, that they were not issuing refunds, and that they had not issued instructions to liquidate without IEEPA duties. They further stated that any refunds will require a review to determine if there was a violation of other customs laws or if other duties, taxes, and fees were still owed. In other words, CBP intends to conduct detailed reviews of all entries before issuing refunds. The responses provided by CBP to the Judge were reviewed by the Judge and likely resulted in his rather strongly worded order. 

We anticipate a prompt filing of an appeal of this order to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), challenging both the broad nature of the relief and the potential applicability to parties not currently in court. We believe that the CAFC will set an expedited briefing process for this appeal, and we also anticipate that the United States will seek to have this order reviewed by the Supreme Court, but at least with respect to parties in court, this will be a very weak case. 

What Importers Should Do

This order is a significant positive development and strongly suggests that the court is not going to tolerate delays for tariff refunds. Importers in court may receive refunds in a matter of months, if not weeks, rather than years, as desired by the Trump administration.  

We continue to believe that filing litigation at the U.S. Court of International Trade is the surest bet to get refunds of IEEPA duties and to get refunds quickly.

Additionally, if you are not currently enrolled in ACE and/or have not set up your ACH Refund, we highly recommend you set up an ACE Account and set up your ACH Refund application through the ACE Portal.  Once an application for ACH Refund is successfully submitted and approved in the ACE Portal, all future refunds will be issued electronically to the designated U.S. bank account.

This is a quickly moving process, and we will keep you abreast as key changes come to light.  

If you have any questions regarding any other import or export-related matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office at info@diaztradelaw.com. 

Follow our tariffs & trade deals page to keep up with the latest trade news.

Read more:

• Supreme Court Rules IEEPA Tariffs Are Unlawful
• Reminder: CBP Now Issues Refunds via ACH Through ACE
• Why You Need Your Own Ace Account
• Tariffs at the Supreme Court!
• High Tariffs, High Stakes: The Rise in Customs Fraud and Enforcement Risk
• Bloomberg Law: Tariff Classification Basics
• ICYMI: Trump Administration Imposes 25% Steel and Aluminum Tariff
• ICYMI: President Trump Signs America First Trade Policy
• Trump Administration Announces Plan for Reciprocal Tariffs
• New Tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China: Key Updates for Importers
• Navigating Tariff Increases: Strategies to Minimize Tariff Costs Under the Trump Administration
• Webinar: Navigating Tariff Challenges: Mitigation Tools & Tactics
• Trump Administration Announces Reciprocal Tariffs

The Court rejected the Trump Administration’s assertion that the statutory text of IEEPA delegates Congressional tariff powers to the President, finding that Congress would not have delegated “highly consequential power” through ambiguous language.

The majority wrote, “Based on two words separated by 16 others in … IEEPA, ‘regulate’ and ‘importation’–the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time. Those words cannot bear such weight.”

The decision was 6-3, with Justice Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh dissenting.

What This Means for Importers

The Trump Administration has made clear that, regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision, tariffs will remain a cornerstone of their trade and “America First” policy. 

On January 9, 2026, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said of the Supreme Court case: “Our expectation is that we’re going to win, and if we don’t win, then we know that we’ve got other tools that we can use that get us to the same place.” He also said in a Fox Business Interview that the Administration has a backup plan ready to go that would allow tariffs to be put “back into place almost immediately, should the Supreme Court rule against us.”

IEEPA is just one of the legislative avenues the Administration has to impose tariffs. Below is a summary of tariff tools available to the Administration.

The Administration will almost certainly pivot to another legal authority to maintain the current tariffs. 

Because the Supreme Court has upheld the Federal Circuit’s decision, the case is remanded to the Court of International Trade to determine whether it can issue a nationwide injunction, which we hope the Court of International Trade will resolve quickly.  

Importers who have filed suit at the Court of International Trade should be eligible to get their own injunction. Further, an individual injunction may not be required, given the Supreme Court decision. The key at this moment is how the Court of International Trade will implement the Supreme Court’s decision.  

We are confident that importers who have filed suit in the Court of International Trade should be eligible to receive refunds for the IEEPA Tariffs they paid. However, the Court of International Trade will need to provide specific instructions for issuing refunds. We are actively monitoring and will advise as soon as we have more information from the Court of International Trade.  

What Importers Should Do

Importers should view the current tariff environment as a long-term reality and proactively invest in strategies that legally minimize their duty exposure. There are several ways to LEGALLY minimize tariffs, including:

• Duty drawback
• Tariff engineering
• Country of origin change
• First sale
• Duty deferral
• Negotiate DDP Incoterms

Importers should also invest in compliance. The U.S. government has signaled that enforcement of trade law is a top priority and has levied hefty fines and even initiated criminal cases against importers evading duties.

Importers should:

• Conduct internal audits
• Refresh classification procedures
• Ensure the accuracy of valuation practices
• Revisit supplier agreements
• Tighten broker oversight
• Leverage technology
• Develop training for staff
• Strengthen recordkeeping practices
• Prepare for audits

Our office will continue to closely monitor and will keep you informed. Please review the following resources to stay informed on tariff updates and jumpstart your 2026 compliance program.

• Live Resource – Tariffs and Trade Deals
• Bloomberg Law: Tariff Classification Basics
• Bloomberg Law: Import Compliance & Training Programs
• Bloomberg Law: CBP’s Recordkeeping Requirements
• Navigating Tariff Increases: Strategies to Minimize Tariff Costs Under the Trump Administration
• Webinar: Navigating Tariff Challenges: Mitigation Tools & Tactics
• Webinar: IEEPA Tariffs, Supreme Court Developments, & Refund Implications

Diaz Trade Law can assist in auditing and/or developing importer compliance programs, setting up importer ACE accounts, and executing strategies to minimize duties. If you have questions about the IEEPA case or questions regarding any other import or export-related matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office at info@diaztradelaw.com.

Reporter Lori Ann LaRocco dives into the recent rise in customs bond insufficiency notices in her Feb. 6 article: President Trump’s tariffs fueled U.S. Customs bond market boom. Now billions hang on Supreme Court ruling.

Here are two excerpts from the piece:

“Jennifer Diaz, board-certified international attorney at Diaz Trade Law, said the number of bond insufficiency notices issued has quadrupled since 2017 and has accelerated recently due to the volatile tariff environment.”

“David Craven, counsel to Diaz Trade, said the threat of new replacement tariffs, coupled with the existing liability facing surety companies, suggests that any refunds would not be immediate. “The fact that liability has gone up, and Customs is now asking the sureties for collateral … operations are at risk, and sureties understandably don’t want to be caught holding the bag,” Craven said.”

Read the full article here.

Jennifer Diaz was also featured in a separate CNBC piece on Feb. 12: Trump tariffs leave importers with record-breaking $3.5 billion U.S. Customs bond funding shortfall.

Jen said:

“In totality, it makes sense that insufficiencies are more than double,” said Jennifer Diaz, attorney at Diaz Trade Law. “Many companies take it for granted that a $50,000 bond should be able to cover you for a one-year period,” she said. “But it might not. They are not utilizing set calculations, and don’t have anyone in their corner telling them that their bond obligation is higher.”

Read the full article here.

Background on New Steel and Aluminum Tariffs

On February 11, 2025, President Trump issued two Proclamations imposing enhanced import tariffs on steel and aluminum products under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. While additional Section 232 tariffs had been in place on certain steel and aluminum products since the first Trump Administration in 2018, the orders eliminated certain exemptions from the tariffs, expanded their scope to cover additional products, and increased the tariffs on covered aluminum goods from 10% to 25%.

On February 18, 2025, two Federal Register Notices were published that included lists of “derivative” steel and aluminum products subject to the 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum under Section 232. The Federal Register Notices, which include the specific Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) classifications for the derivative products in Annex 1, are available here (steel) and here (aluminum). The tariffs were increased from 25% to 50% effective June 4, 2025.1 On August 19, 2025, another Federal Register Notice was published, adding 407 HTSUS classifications to the list of products that will be considered as steel-aluminum derivative products.

Approaches to Valuation

CBP has published FAQs and CSMS messages on steel and aluminum about how to calculate and report the value of the steel and aluminum content of steel and aluminum derivative articles. However, there have been different interpretations of this guidance, including by CBP itself.

The FAQ reads,

“The value of the steel/aluminum content should be determined in accordance with the principles of the Customs Valuation Agreement, as implemented in 19 U.S.C. 1401a. Thus, the value of the steel/aluminum content is the total price paid or payable for that content, which is the total payment (direct or indirect, and exclusive of any costs, charges, or expenses incurred for transportation, insurance, and related services incident to the international shipment of the merchandise from the country of exportation to the country of importation) made/to be made for the steel/aluminum content by the buyer to, or for the benefit of, the seller of the steel/aluminum content. Normally, this would be based on the invoice paid by the buyer of the steel/aluminum content to, or for the benefit of, the seller of the steel/aluminum content.”

The CSMS message on steel states that “where the value of the steel content is less than the entered value of the imported article, the good must be reported on two lines.  The first line will represent the non-steel content, while the second line will represent the steel content.” The CSMS message states the same thing for aluminum.

Some importers interpret this guidance to mean that the value of the steel or aluminum content in a derivative product is the price the foreign manufacturer paid for the steel or aluminum. Other importers (and currently CBP’s Base Metals Center of Excellence and Expertise, in informal guidance) interpret this guidance to mean the value of steel or aluminum based on the price paid for the derivative product by the U.S. importer. CBP has issued Customs Forms 28s and 29s that reflect this interpretation.

CBP has not issued any formal guidance in the form of a customs ruling, additional FAQ, or Cargo System Messaging Service message addressing these different interpretations.

New CIT Case

A lawsuit was recently filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), challenging how CBP has been valuing and applying Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum derivative products. 

At the center of the lawsuit is the informal guidance provided by the Base Metals CEE mentioned above. Express Fasteners, Ltd. of Illinois filed the lawsuit, arguing that its imports of screws and fasteners were unlawfully assessed Section 232 steel duties.2 According to the plaintiff, CBP recently began applying 232 duties to the entire U.S. customs value of imported screws and fasteners, which includes machining, fabrication, overhead, the manufacturer’s profit, and other costs.

Express argues that the public Section 232 FAQs limit the 232 tariffs to the value of the steel content of the product, as determined by the value their foreign supplier paid for the steel, and that this change in valuation approach was never published and subjected to rulemaking procedures and is therefore an unlawful and arbitrary departure from established agency guidance. 

What Importers Should Do

Diaz Trade Law recommends taking the more conservative approach reflected in CBP’s most recent, albeit informal, guidance and reporting the steel and aluminum value based on the U.S. customs value of the steel and aluminum, which includes machining, fabrication, overhead, and the manufacturer’s profit. If the article includes non-steel, non-aluminum content such as wood or plastic, we recommend allocating the machining, fabrication, overhead, and profit across the steel/aluminum and non-steel/non-aluminum content in a reasonable manner. We further recommend monitoring the liquidation of affected entries and protesting them within 180 days based on the pending litigation. For importers who choose to report the value of the steel and aluminum based on the value their foreign manufacturer paid for these materials, we urge you to consider filing a prior disclosure to pay the duty difference if the court rules in favor of CBP in the pending Fasteners case. All importers should prioritize proper documentation and recordkeeping, as CBP may ask for detailed breakdowns and supporting analysis at any time.

Diaz Trade Law will continue to monitor for developments and will provide additional information as it becomes available. In the meantime, contact us for assistance with valuation procedures, recordkeeping, staff training, and more. 305-456-3830, info@diaztradelaw.com

Learn more:

• ICYMI: Trump Administration Imposes 25% Steel and Aluminum Tariff
• Bloomberg Law: CBP Recordkeeping Requirements
• Bloomberg Law: Import Compliance & Training Programs
• Bloomberg Law: Bloomberg Law Feature: Responding to CBP Form 28 or 29
• Webinar: Navigating CBP Regulations: Essential Practices for Import Success
• Webinar: Building and Maintaining an Effective Import Compliance Plan
• Webinar: Introduction to Importing

When Customs Issues Cross the Line

Most customs violations start as a civil enforcement matter. Errors involving classification, valuation, country of origin, or admissibility are often addressed through a request for information (CBP 28), notice of action (CBP 29), protest, prior disclosure, or penalty proceeding. However, when patterns emerge or when agencies believe false statements or deliberate schemes are involved, the enforcement posture can change dramatically.

Federal agencies, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), and the Department of Justice (DOJ), routinely collaborate to investigate potential criminal violations tied to import activity. These investigations may focus on:

• Undervaluation or misclassification to avoid duties
• False statements or omissions in entry documentation
• Evasion of import restrictions or regulatory requirements
• Coordinated schemes involving suppliers, brokers, or intermediaries

Once criminal intent is suspected, importers may face subpoenas, search warrants, asset seizures, or even criminal charges.

Increased Focus on Enforcement

The recent volatile tariff environment has created increased incentives to cheat the system. The U.S. government has made clear that it is watching closely.

In a May 2025 memo, Matthew Galeotti, head of the DOJ’s Criminal Division, named trade and customs fraud as one of the top enforcement priorities in white-collar crime. The DOJ also expanded its Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program to include customs fraud.

DOJ has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to criminally charge bad actors with customs fraud and has secured indictments and convictions against several importers.

While CBP hasn’t issued a formal enforcement priorities memo like the DOJ, its recent public messaging leaves no room for doubt. In May 2025, the agency warned the pharmaceutical industry that undervaluing goods amounts to trade evasion. Additionally, a LinkedIn post from the agency stated: “CBP targets and combats duty evasion at every level. Make no mistake – bad actors violating U.S. trade law will be identified, investigated, and punished to the fullest extent of the law.”

Learn More: Upcoming Webinar on Customs Enforcement and Criminal Risk

DTL President Jennifer Diaz and Of Counsel Rick Quinn will explore these issues in an upcoming webinar. Join us on February 25 for a live webinar, “Customs & Criminal Law – Case Study: Tobacco.”

This webinar takes a deep dive into the intersection of customs enforcement and criminal law through the lens of a real-world tobacco-related case study. Tobacco imports are subject to some of the most complex, highly regulated, and heavily enforced rules in international trade.

Presenters will discuss:

• Overview of tobacco import regulations and why the product category carries heightened enforcement risk
• How CBP identifies irregularities and the roles of key agencies in enforcement actions
• The escalation pathway from civil customs violations to criminal investigations
• Common compliance failures in tobacco imports and how importers can avoid them
• Strategies for mitigating exposure
• Practical lessons learned for importers and trade professionals handling high-risk commodities

Who should attend?

• Importers
• Manufacturers
• Customs Brokers
• Regulatory Affairs Professionals
• In-house Legal Counsel
• Product Development Managers
• Others interested in FDA

REGISTER HERE.

Read more:

• High Tariffs, High Stakes: The Rise in Customs Fraud and Enforcement Risk
• DOJ Targets Trade Fraud: Importers Now on Notice as Criminal Division Ramps Up Enforcement
• Bloomberg Law: What is an Importer’s Reasonable Care Standard?
• Bloomberg Law:  Submitting a Prior Disclosure to CBP
• Webinar: The False Claims Act
• Webinar: Building and Maintaining an Effective Import Compliance Plan

1. Review Import Data for Accuracy

Begin with a thorough audit of your import data. Confirm that HTS classifications are correct and current, declared values accurately reflect your transactions, and country-of-origin determinations are well documented. Small mistakes can lead to large penalties.

2. Reassess Tariffs and Duty Exposure

Year-end is the ideal time to evaluate whether you are paying unnecessary duties and explore your options for tariff mitigation strategies. Consider what exclusions have changed, whether tariff engineering may reduce costs, or whether sourcing strategies should be updated. Many importers discover duty-saving opportunities simply by reassessing their tariff positions annually.

3. Strengthen Forced Labor Compliance

With UFLPA enforcement intensifying, importers must confirm that supplier information, ownership structures, and supply chain documentation are up to date. Now is the time to verify traceability records, refresh internal training, and assess whether high-risk suppliers require additional review.

4. Update Written Compliance Procedures

If your compliance manual or SOPs haven’t been updated this year, they’re likely outdated. Written processes should reflect current regulations, product updates, tariff changes, and internal workflow adjustments. CBP expects importers to document their compliance efforts clearly and accurately.

5. Conduct a Recordkeeping Audit

Recordkeeping is a key part of an importer’s duty to use reasonable care. Ensure you can quickly retrieve all required import documents from invoices and packing lists to HTS support, bills of lading, and supplier certifications. Recordkeeping failures are one of the most common issues CBP flags during audits, and year-end is the perfect time to clean up files.

6. Update Internal Training

Import compliance is only as strong as the people involved. Year-end is an excellent opportunity to refresh your team’s understanding of classification, valuation, country-of-origin rules, reasonable care, and forced labor compliance. Well-trained teams help prevent mistakes and reduce future risk.

7. Assess Audit Readiness

Consider how prepared your company is to respond to a CBP Form 28 or 29, a Focused Assessment, or a forced labor detention. If gaps or uncertainties exist, year-end provides the chance to correct them, strengthen documentation, or make a plan to improve your readiness approach over the coming weeks. 

8. Set Compliance Goals for the Upcoming Year

Finally, look forward. Establish measurable goals for the new year, whether it’s improving classification accuracy, reducing filing errors, tightening supplier oversight, implementing new technology, or enhancing training. Strategic goals help transform compliance from a reactive function into a competitive advantage.

Contact Diaz Trade Law for Compliance Help

A year-end compliance review is one of the most valuable things an importer can do to reduce risk, control costs, and prepare for the evolving trade environment. Diaz Trade Law has decades of experience helping importers with pre-compliance. With an increased focus on enforcement expected in 2026, NOW is the time to get your compliance strategy in order. Contact us today for assistance. 305-456-3830 or info@diaztradelaw.com.

Learn more:

• Bloomberg Law: CBP Recordkeeping Requirements
• Bloomberg Law: Responding to a CBP Form 28 or 29
• Bloomberg Law: What is an Importer’s Reasonable Care Standard?
• Band-Aid or Stitches? What’s Your Compliance Approach?
• UFLPA DHS Forced Labor Guidance – What Importers Need to Know
• Know Your Supply Chain: Forced Labor
• Webinar: Tariff Mitigation Strategies
• Webinar: Importing 101 – Introduction to U.S. Customs
• Webinar: ACE: Auditing Your Import History
• Webinar: CBP 201 – Building & Maintaining an Effective Import Compliance Plan

What Happened

For a period of over ten years, from June 2011 to March 2023, Harman knowingly imported heat sinks that contained extruded aluminum from China without paying the required antidumping and countervailing duties (AD/CVD).

The settlement also reveals that when Harman discovered its failure to pay AD/CVD, the company concealed this fact and decided not to disclose it to the U.S. government. 

This case arose from a whistleblower lawsuit filed under the False Claims Act, which permits private parties to file suit on behalf of the United States for false claims and share in a portion of the government’s recovery. The whistleblower in this case will receive over $2M of the settlement proceeds.

Enforcement is a Top Priority for the U.S. Government

High tariffs in the current trade environment have created a higher incentive to cheat. The U.S. government has made clear that enforcing customs laws is a top priority. 

For example, on May 12, 2025, Matthew Galeotti, the Head of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, sent a memo to all criminal division personnel highlighting the focus areas of the division for white-collar crime.

The memo included a list of “high-impact areas” that the division will prioritize investigating and prosecuting. Trade and customs fraud, including tariff evasion, was second on the list.

The DOJ also revised its Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program and added “trade, tariff, and customs fraud by corporations” to the priority list.

CBP has also noted that “bad actors violating U.S. trade law will be identified, investigated, and punished to the fullest extent of the law.”

Now more than ever, it is critical for importers to examine their import compliance programs and ensure that adequate procedures are in place to correctly enter goods into the United States. Importers should proactively conduct extensive due diligence in their supply chains to ensure they can detect, report, and remedy any noncompliance with customs requirements. In addition, if an importer becomes aware of the fraudulent conduct of a competitor, they should contact counsel to discuss options for reporting it to the government.

Diaz Trade Law can assist importers in developing compliance plans and guide importers in the event of a customs investigation. Contact us at 305-456-3830 or info@diaztradelaw.com.

Learn More

• Bloomberg Law: What is an Importer’s Reasonable Care Standard?
• Bloomberg Law: Submitting a Prior Disclosure to CBP
• Webinar: Importing 101: A Crash Course in CBP Compliance and Best Practices
• Webinar: Basics on Tariff Classification
• Webinar: Building and Maintaining an Effective Import Compliance Plan
• Webinar: The False Claims Act