Two recent U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) trade fraud cases – one guilty plea and one False Claims Act (FCA) settlement – again demonstrate the focus and priority the administration is putting on tariff- and trade-related conduct. These actions also provide important lessons for companies involved in the import of goods, even those who are not importer of record (IOR).

In April 2026, the DOJ announced that the Boise Cascade Company pleaded guilty and would pay a $6.3 million criminal fine for a felony violation of the Lacey Act for its role in a timber trafficking scheme to evade anti-dumping and countervailing duties (AD/CVD). Notably, Boise Cascade pled guilty even though it was not the IOR. In May, the DOJ's Trade Fraud Task Force announced a $549 million settlement under the FCA related to tariff violations by Perfectus Aluminum and related companies. The settlement was DOJ's largest ever for an FCA case related to tariff evasion, more than 10 times the previous highest amount. 

While the conduct at issue in both these cases occurred long before the start of the second Trump administration, the pursuit and announcement of these matters demonstrate its ongoing intent to use a variety of enforcement tools to address its focus on preventing and deterring tariff evasion. We expect both the number and dollar value of trade-related cases to continue to increase in the coming years as the DOJ utilizes its broad enforcement toolkit to pursue not only IORs but also entities who knowingly purchase fraudulently imported goods. This increased enforcement makes it critical for companies to invest in the development of robust trade compliance programs. 

Boise Cascade

Boise Cascade pled guilty to violation of the Lacey Act, a 100-year-old agriculture and conservation statute that makes it unlawful to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any plant in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation.  

According to Boise Cascade's guilty plea, between 2018 and 2021, the company purchased approximately $30 million worth of hardwood plywood imported from China without paying anti-dumping duties. From December 2017 through April 2021, countervailing duties of 22.98 percent and anti-dumping duties of 183.36 percent applied to imports of hardwood plywood sourced from China. Boise Cascade was not the IOR and did not make any false certifications about the origin of the plywood to avoid the anti-dumping and countervailing duties. However, according to the plea agreement, Boise Cascade still violated the Lacey Act by purchasing the hardwood plywood from the IOR, Horizon Plywood, knowing that the plywood was imported illegally without paying the duties. 

Horizon transshipped its products from China to Malaysia, where products were moved into new shipping containers before importation from Malaysia to the U.S. In doing so, Horizon falsified import declarations for the plywood, thereby misrepresenting the plywood as of non-Chinese origin to circumvent and evade the AD/CVD that applied to Chinese-origin products. In its plea agreement, Boise Cascade admitted that it knew – "including action manifesting willful blindness" – that the plywood was illegally imported from China without paying duties because, (1) it knew the plywood from Horizon Plywood was sourced from China prior to, among other things, the duties being imposed; (2) the low price of the plywood did not change after 200 percent duties were imposed; and (3) it knew Horizon had previously transshipped product. 

In February 2024, the two principals of Horizon were each sentenced to 57 months in prison for their role in the scheme. 

Perfectus Aluminum

The Perfectus settlement stems from similar conduct. In May 2011, an AD/CVD order went into effect, requiring payment of 33.28 percent anti-dumping duties and 374.15 percent countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China. According to the allegations in the qui tam complaints and the settlement agreement, from July 2011 through June 2014, the defendants¹ imported approximately 2.2 million aluminum extrusions worth approximately $800 million from China into the U.S. These aluminum extrusions were spot-welded together, giving them the appearance of aluminum "pallets" – finished merchandise that was not subject to the May 2011 AD/CVD order. Instead of paying the required duties on aluminum extrusions, the defendants imported and categorized the aluminum extrusions as finished aluminum "pallets" and paid no AD/CVD. The total amount in tariffs the defendants allegedly evaded via their scheme is estimated by the government at upwards of $3 billion.

Between April 2015 and September 2018, relators filed three qui tam FCA actions against the defendants alleging false claims on importing forms related to the aluminum pallet imports. In July 2019, the DOJ indicted six domestic corporate defendants, as well as a Chinese corporate defendant and three individuals, in the Central District of California, and in August 2021, a jury convicted the corporate defendants² of conspiracy, wire fraud, and passing false and fraudulent papers through a customhouse. In April 2022, the court sentenced the defendants to five years of probation and issued a $1.83 billion restitution order. 

In December 2025, the three pending FCA qui tam matters were consolidated into one. The government then intervened in May 2026 and announced the $549 million settlement two weeks later. The three qui tam relators will receive 17.5 percent of the settlement proceeds, or approximately $96 million. 

Key Takeaways

DOJ's increased focus on tariff evasion: At the start of the administration, the DOJ identified "trade and customs fraud, including tariff evasion" among its top priorities for white collar criminal enforcement. The DOJ also reorganized some of its units to focus more on trade enforcement, first by changing the focus of the Market Integrity and Major Frauds Unit (MIMF) and combining it with personnel from the Consumer Protection Branch of the DOJ Civil Division to form the new Market, Government, and Consumer Fraud Unit (MGC) to focus more on trade and tariff fraud, and later creating the Trade Fraud Task Force, which includes the MGC unit. The DOJ has announced eight trade-related FCA resolutions since January 2025 – seven civil and one criminal. 

Though the conduct at issue in Perfectus Aluminum and Boise Cascade predates the second Trump administration, these settlements should be viewed in the context of the administration's publicly declared focus on tariff enforcement. Companies involved in exporting of goods, particularly from China, need to be mindful of the potential for civil and criminal actions. The previous high-water mark in terms of a tariff evasion FCA settlement also came during the current administration when, in December 2025, Ceratizit USA LLC agreed to pay $54.4 million for its involvement in a scheme involving goods from China. And in July 2025, the DOJ announced settlements in two other tariff evasion schemes involving goods from China, as previously reported here. 

In addition, the use of the Lacey Act in the Boise Cascade prosecution to target buyers of fraudulently imported products demonstrates the government's creativity in using any and all available statutory and other enforcement tools to pursue these trade fraud cases, and the increased risk from this comprehensive effort to combat trade fraud. 

Liability beyond IORs: The DOJ's prosecution of Boise Cascade for its role in the timber trafficking scheme signals the government's intention to hold all participants of tariff evasion schemes liable for their actions, not just the IORs. Traditionally, customs enforcement has centered on the IOR – the entity listed on entry documents and responsible for accurately declaring classifications, valuations, country of origin, and all other required information to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) – and often enforcement actions did not extend beyond the IOR. 

Boise Cascade was not charged for acting as the IOR or for falsifying customs paperwork; instead, it was prosecuted for knowingly purchasing goods it knew or had reason to suspect were imported fraudulently. The cautionary tale of Boise Cascade demonstrates that non-IORs can incur federal criminal liability for customs evasion, even if they never submit a customs entry and never create any false documentation. The government's position is clear: simply continuing to buy from a supplier known to be evading duties can be enough to create criminal liability.

Large settlement with potentially larger settlements to come: The amount of the Perfectus Aluminum settlement – more than 10 times the previous largest settlement of this type – is noteworthy, and the announcement of the settlement suggests that the DOJ wanted the amount to receive attention. The Perfectus relators will receive approximately $96 million of the settlement proceeds, and generally when a relator brings an FCA claim on behalf of the government, that relator stands to receive between 15 and 30 percent of the final award. These large awards are likely to incentivize whistleblower to raise claims, leading to an increase in FCA claims related to tariff evasion.

An additional factor driving increased enforcement is that tariffs on goods from China were relatively low during the 2011 to 2014 time period when the underlying conduct took place. For example, importers of Chinese aluminum products would have had to pay the general duty rate on their imports, alongside applicable AD/CVD. By contrast, tariffs today on aluminum imports from China are subject to section 232 duties alongside applicable AD/CVD. The April 2026 section 232 metals proclamation imposed a flat 50 percent rate on articles made entirely or almost entirely of aluminum; alongside a flat 25 percent rate on derivative articles substantially made of aluminum. Therefore, cases that involve allegations of tariff evasion after the 2025 spike in tariffs are likely to increase, both in terms of the number of cases brought and the size of potential awards. 

Competitors as whistleblowers: Historically, FCA cases often arose when internal whistleblowers raise concerns about company conduct. Increasingly, and particularly in the areas of tariff-related FCA cases, the relators who bring FCA cases are competitors concerned about misconduct by competitors gaining an unfair advantage in the market. This dynamic was at play in the Perfectus Aluminum case: the relators were the president and CEO of Merit Aluminum Company, a California-based competitor to Perfectus Aluminum; a former business associate of the defendants; and the Aluminum Extruders Council, a domestic trade association representing U.S. aluminum extrusion manufacturers. 

Competitors serving as relators increases the compliance and litigation risks for companies involved in the import business. Most companies have compliance programs that are designed to field and address complaints from internal whistleblowers, so companies are better able to manage risk and can use their whistleblower hotline as an important part of their compliance program. But the incentives are different for competitors, who may be more interested in triggering an investigation, proceeding to litigation or looking for a potential relator payout, rather than raising the issue with the competitor. 

By the same token, where they are aware of tariff evasion by a competitor, companies would be well-served to consider the viability of an FCA claim, given the DOJ's current focus. There are advantages and disadvantages to pursuing a claim, as with any litigation, but in the right case a properly focused complaint can serve as an effective deterrent and also carries the prospect of substantial financial recovery. 

Miller & Chevalier has experience advising companies regarding strategic customs and tariff planning, developing trade-related compliance programs, investigating and litigating FCA claims, and defending against government enforcement actions, including trade-related enforcement actions. 

For more information, please contact:

Richard A. Mojica, rmojica@milchev.com, 202-626-1571

Joshua Drew, jdrew@milchev.com, 202-626-5811

Ian A. Herbert, iherbert@milchev.com, 202-626-1496

Michael Dearden, mdearden@milchev.com, 202-626-1478

------------

¹Perfectus Aluminum, Perfectus Aluminum Acquisitions, Scuderia Development LLC, 1001 Doubleday LLC, Von-Karman – Main Street LLC, and 10681 Production Avenue LLC – a network of aluminum companies and warehouse owners affiliated with Chinese businessman Zhongtian Liu and his company, China Zhongwang Holdings Ltd.

²The Chinese corporate defendant and three individual defendants have yet to appear in court in the U.S. 

The information contained in this communication is not intended as legal advice or as an opinion on specific facts. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. For more information, please contact one of the senders or your existing Miller & Chevalier lawyer contact. The invitation to contact the firm and its lawyers is not to be construed as a solicitation for legal work. Any new lawyer-client relationship will be confirmed in writing.

This, and related communications, are protected by copyright laws and treaties. You may make a single copy for personal use. You may make copies for others, but not for commercial purposes. If you give a copy to anyone else, it must be in its original, unmodified form, and must include all attributions of authorship, copyright notices, and republication notices. Except as described above, it is unlawful to copy, republish, redistribute, and/or alter this presentation without prior written consent of the copyright holder.