A New Era of Trade Fraud Enforcement

The new DHS/DOJ Trade Fraud Resource Guide should resonate across the trade ecosystem, especially for importers, Customs brokers, and in-house counsel.

What makes the Guide so notable is not just the substance, but the framing. Trade fraud is no longer being discussed as a narrow customs issue or a technical filing problem. It is being presented as an economic security issue, a public safety issue, a supply chain integrity issue, and a forced labor issue. That shift has practical consequences for everyone involved in moving goods into the United States. 

For importers, the message is direct: responsibility cannot be outsourced. Even when brokers, suppliers, or logistics partners handle pieces of the process, the importer of record remains responsible for the truthfulness of the information submitted to the government. Classification, valuation, country of origin, and admissibility are not just operational data points. They are legal representations that need to be supported by facts. 

For Customs brokers, the Guide reinforces a similarly important point. Brokers are not mere processors of client instructions. They are expected to exercise due diligence and to respond appropriately when something appears inaccurate, incomplete, or suspicious. In an environment where enforcement agencies are explicitly focused on fraud typologies like undervaluation, origin misstatements, AD/CVD evasion, shell company structures, and broker-related misconduct, the broker’s role as a gatekeeper becomes even more important. 

And for in-house counsel, the Guide reads as a broader governance warning. Many trade-related risks do not begin with overt fraud. They begin with weak internal controls, fragmented ownership across departments, poor supplier visibility, overreliance on third parties, and a failure to test whether the business can actually support what it is declaring at the border. When those weaknesses persist, a Customs issue can quickly become an investigations issue, a reputational issue, or a board-level issue. 

The Guide becomes even more compelling when you look at the kinds of conduct it highlights. Some examples are easy to picture.

A company may import goods made in a country subject to elevated duties but declare a different country of origin after minimal processing elsewhere. Another importer may describe products under a lower-duty tariff classification that does not actually match the goods. In other cases, invoices may understate the value of the merchandise, reducing duties owed while making the transaction appear cleaner on paper than it really is. These are classic forms of trade fraud, and they remain central enforcement concerns. 

Other examples are more complex, but just as important. A business might route goods through a shell company to obscure the true supplier or consignee. A broker may continue filing entries based on implausible commercial information without adequately escalating the issue. A company may also claim eligibility for preferential treatment under a free trade agreement without sufficient support or fail to identify exposure to antidumping or countervailing duties that dramatically increase the true amount owed. 

The Guide also emphasizes risks that move beyond revenue. For example, a shipment of consumer products may enter the country with false or misleading safety certifications. Regulated food products might be presented in a way that evades prior notice or import alerts. Goods produced with forced labor may be mislabeled or routed through third countries to conceal their true origin. In each of these situations, the falsehood is not merely a Customs defect, but instead the mechanism that allows unsafe, prohibited, or exploitative goods to enter the stream of commerce. 

What ties all three audiences together is the Guide’s repeated emphasis on candor and oversight. The import system depends on truthful disclosures. When the underlying information is false or unreliable, the consequences can go far beyond delayed shipments or corrected duties. According to the Guide, enforcement exposure may extend across civil, criminal, and administrative channels, especially when false statements conceal revenue loss, unsafe goods, or forced labor concerns. 

That is why this Guide feels bigger than a standard compliance publication.

It is really a reminder that trade compliance is not a siloed function. It sits at the intersection of sourcing, logistics, finance, legal, product stewardship, and executive oversight. Importers need stronger supplier diligence and internal validation. Brokers need strong escalation procedures and disciplined documentation. In-house counsel need visibility into how trade compliance fits within the company’s broader risk framework. 

The common thread is accountability.

The familiar problem areas are all there: false country-of-origin claims, undervaluation, HTS misclassification, AD/CVD evasion, shell company fraud, forced labor-related violations, and broker misconduct. But the deeper point is that these are not isolated technical errors. They are recurring patterns that often reflect failures in governance, verification, and cross-functional communication. 

For all three audiences, the core question is the same. Not simply whether goods are moving, entries are being filed, or shipments are being released, but whether the company and its partners can confidently defend the truth of the data, sourcing, and controls behind those entries. 

That is the standard this Guide points toward and in the current enforcement environment is likely to matter more and more.

For those who want to read the full publication, the DHS/DOJ Trade Fraud Resource Guide is available here: DHS-DOJ Trade Fraud Resource Guide