We wanted to bring to your attention two recent qui tam case settlements involving the underpayment of customs duties. They are as follows:
- Further to our message below where Z Gallerie agreed to settle with the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) for $15 million, the DOJ recently announced that Bassett Mirror Co. (“Bassett”) agreed to pay $10.5 million to settle allegations that it violated the False Claims Act (“FCA”) by underpaying antidumping duties. Total settlements in this case have now reached $25.5 million. The underlying complaint, initiated by a competitor, alleged that between January 2009 and February 2014, several companies deliberately misclassified wooden bedroom furniture as non-bedroom furniture on its official import documents to avoid paying antidumping duties. A copy of the most recent DOJ press release is available here.
- DOJ announced that a textile importer, American Dawn, and three company executives, agreed to pay more than $2.3 million to settle allegations that they violated the FCA by intentionally misclassifying goods in order to pay lower duty rates. The underlying complaint, initiated by a former employee, alleged that for more than a decade American Dawn intentionally misclassified certain textile articles, including bath towels and shop towels, as polishing cloths in order to pay a lower duty rate. The press release is available here.
These cases and settlements are interesting for a few reasons.
First, both cases were initiated by whistleblowers under the FCA. In Bassett/Z Gallerie, a competitor initiated the court action and, in American Dawn, it was a former employee. The whistleblowers in these cases with receive a sizeable portion of the settlements. This incentive will continue to feed the trend of there being an increasing number of private-party initiated trade enforcement actions.
Second, DOJ appears to be settling these cases for less than is available to it under applicable laws. Under the FCA, maximum liability includes the unpaid duties, three times the unpaid duties, $11,000 for each false claim (i.e., each import entry), plus attorneys’ fees. In addition, under the Tariff Act of 1930, maximum penalties include the full value of the imported merchandise (because the government alleged intentional evasion of duties, rather than negligence or gross negligence). Considering that the PRC-wide rate for wooden bedroom furniture is ~216%, the importers could have been liable for many millions more than the government ultimately agreed to settle for. It is unclear why the government would agree to what could be considered “generous” settlements , particularly since they appear to be “global” in nature (they resolve not just the FCA liability, but the liability imposed under the Tariff Act of 1930, as well), but it is unlikely that such generous terms would be afforded by CBP in an stand alone administrative proceeding.
Finally, in both press releases, government agencies restated their commitment to protecting the economy by investigating alleged evasions of customs duties. For example, in the American Dawn settlement announcement, the director of the CBP field office in Atlanta stated, “[t]his settlement agreement is another example of CBP’s day to day collaborative efforts between U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officers at ports of entry, Import Specialists with the Centers of Excellence and Expertise, and Immigration & Customs Enforcement Homeland Security Investigations to protect the American public and the U.S. economy.”
In light of this, all importers should make sure that they effective internal controls in place over customs matters that include a mechanism for employees to raise legitimate compliance-related concerns. In our experience, companies can generally protect themselves from enforcement actions (FCA or otherwise) by having reasonable internal controls.
We hope this is helpful. If you have any questions, or if you would like to discuss these issues further, please let us know.