U.S. fines $36M+ for tariff evasion

U.S. tariff-evasion enforcement is not one single system. It runs through several channels, including Customs investigations, civil False Claims Act cases brought by the Justice Department, and, in some matters, criminal trade-fraud probes. That helps explain why penalty figures can vary widely from case to case and from sector to sector. The recent discussion around “$36 million-plus” in fines is directionally consistent with public enforcement actions, but government records show some recent settlements have been larger. ### Where does the money figure come from? The Justice Department has announced several customs-duty cases in which companies agreed to pay millions of dollars to resolve allegations of evading tariffs or other import duties. Ceratizit USA, a North Carolina distributor of tungsten carbide products, agreed on Dec. 18, 2025 to pay $54.4 million to settle allegations it failed to pay duties owed on Chinese-made products. Ford Motor agreed in March 2024 to pay $365 million to resolve U.S. allegations that it misclassified imported Transit Connect vehicles to avoid higher duties, according to Reuters reporting of the settlement. The government said the case was among the largest customs penalty settlements in recent history. Other recent cases have come in at smaller amounts. (justice.gov) The Justice Department said in August 2025 that Allied Stone and its president agreed to pay $12.4 million over alleged evasion of antidumping and countervailing duties on quartz products from China, while MGI International and subsidiaries agreed in 2025 to a $6.8 million civil settlement tied to customs-duty disclosures. (vwvortex.com) ### Why are the penalties so uneven? The legal path matters. The Enforce and Protect Act, or EAPA, gives U.S. Customs and Border Protection a process to investigate whether an importer evaded antidumping or countervailing duties, while separate Justice Department cases can seek recoveries under the False Claims Act or other statutes. The conduct also differs. Ceratizit’s case involved alleged country-of-origin misrepresentation and tariff-code misclassification over multiple years, while the Ford matter centered on the classification of imported vans. (justice.gov) Those differences affect the duties at issue, the period covered, and the remedies the government pursues. (cbp.gov) ### What does the government say it is doing now? The Justice Department said on Aug. 29, 2025 that it launched a cross-agency Trade Fraud Task Force with the Department of Homeland Security to pursue importers and others accused of evading tariffs and duties. The department said the task force would use duty and penalty collection under the Tariff Act of 1930, False Claims Act cases, and, where appropriate, criminal prosecutions and seizures. (justice.gov) CBP has also said EAPA remains a core enforcement tool. On its public guidance page, the agency says EAPA allows interested parties to submit allegations that an importer is evading antidumping or countervailing duties and provides for administrative and judicial review of determinations. ### Does this prove tariffs are being enforced consistently? Public case records do not show a uniform pattern across all industries. (justice.gov) They show enforcement in products including vehicles, flooring, quartz, patio furniture, plastic resin and tungsten carbide, using different statutes and producing very different dollar outcomes. (cbp.gov) Trade lawyers and officials sometimes argue that this patchwork creates uncertainty for importers, but any broader claim about new U.S.-EU negotiations to counter China was not independently verified in the reporting and official materials reviewed here. What is verifiable is that U.S. agencies have expanded customs-fraud enforcement tools and publicized larger recoveries. (vwvortex.com) ### What can companies and complainants do next? CBP says interested parties can file an EAPA allegation directly with the agency if they believe an importer is evading antidumping or countervailing duties. The agency’s website lists the next EAPA overview webinar for June 25, 2026, and says parties can seek administrative review and then go to the Court of International Trade. (cbp.gov) (justice.gov)