Customs‑fraud settlement spotlight

A December 2025 Justice Department settlement put a $54.4 million price on alleged customs-duty evasion by Ceratizit USA. (justice.gov) The Justice Department said Ceratizit USA, a Charlotte, North Carolina-based distributor of tungsten carbide products, failed to pay duties owed on imports from China. The agency announced the deal on December 18, 2025. (justice.gov) In the settlement agreement, the government alleged that from August 7, 2020, through March 1, 2024, Ceratizit misrepresented the country of origin of some tungsten carbide products at importation into the United States. The government also alleged the company undervalued certain imports from China from July 29, 2015, through March 1, 2024. (justice.gov) Customs duties are taxes paid when goods enter the United States, and the bill changes if an importer lists the wrong origin, value, or product category. The Justice Department pursued the Ceratizit matter under the False Claims Act, the federal law that lets the government recover money when it says someone knowingly avoided paying what was owed. (justice.gov; kellergrover.com) The case also involved a whistleblower suit filed under the False Claims Act’s qui tam provisions, which allow private parties to sue on the government’s behalf and share in a recovery. The Justice Department said relator James Treacy will receive about $9.8 million from the settlement. (justice.gov) The Justice Department said the settlement was its largest customs-fraud recovery under the False Claims Act. Keller Grover, a plaintiffs’ law firm that represents whistleblowers, cited the case on April 12, 2026, as an example of rising enforcement risk for importers. (justice.gov; kellergrover.com) That warning came after the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security announced a cross-agency Trade Fraud Task Force in August 2025. The agencies said the unit would combine civil and criminal enforcement tools against importers and others accused of defrauding the United States. (justice.gov) Ceratizit did not admit liability in the settlement. The agreement says the claims were allegations only and that the company resolved them to avoid the delay, uncertainty, inconvenience, and expense of litigation. (justice.gov) The settlement turned a technical import filing dispute into a five-year enforcement marker: a company paid $54.4 million, a whistleblower collected $9.8 million, and customs declarations moved closer to the center of False Claims Act enforcement. (justice.gov; justice.gov)