Customs Tariff Fraud Whistleblower: The Uni-Tile $280M Suit

DOJ Files Civil Suit Seeking More Than $280 Million in Customs Tariff Fraud Case

On October 7, 2026, the Department of Justice filed a civil fraud lawsuit in the United States Court of International Trade against Uni-Tile & Marble Inc. and its chief executive officer, Xin Mian Pan, seeking $67.9 million in unpaid customs duties and $222.5 million in fraud penalties — a combined exposure exceeding $280 million. The complaint, which is a customs tariff fraud whistleblower-relevant enforcement action, alleges transshipment, undervaluation, and misdescription of imported merchandise across 503 declared shipments from September 2018 to August 2023. The claims in the complaint are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability. Every False Claims Act matter is different; results depend on the specific facts of each case, and no similar outcome is implied.

What the Government Alleges Against Uni-Tile & Marble Inc.

According to the complaint, from September 2018 to August 2023, the defendants allegedly carried out a scheme involving multiple shell companies that resulted in materially false statements and omissions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) across 503 declared shipments of wooden cabinets and vanities, quartz surface products, ceramic tiles, and other merchandise imported from the People’s Republic of China. The government seeks to hold Uni-Tile & Marble Inc. and Xin Mian Pan jointly and severally liable for $67.9 million in unpaid customs duties and $222.5 million in fraud penalties. Every False Claims Act matter is different; results depend on the specific facts of each case, and no similar outcome is implied.

The Legal Authority Behind the Penalty Demand: 19 U.S.C. § 1592

The civil complaint invokes 19 U.S.C. § 1592(a), a provision of the Tariff Act of 1930, as the basis for the duty and penalty demands. This case illustrates that the fraud penalties authorized under that provision can far exceed the underlying unpaid duties — here, $222.5 million in penalties on top of $67.9 million in duties. The DOJ’s Trade Fraud Task Force, which partners with CBP and other law enforcement agencies, is involved in the matter, with Trial Attorney Anna Walker representing the United States. Every False Claims Act matter is different; results depend on the specific facts of each case, and no similar outcome is implied.

How Customs Tariff Fraud Schemes Are Structured — And What Insiders Recognize

Employees inside importing companies, freight forwarding operations, customs brokerages, or supply chain management firms may encounter conduct that resembles the patterns alleged in the Uni-Tile matter. Understanding those patterns is often the first step for a potential customs tariff fraud whistleblower.

Transshipment: Disguising the True Country of Origin

One hallmark of the alleged Uni-Tile scheme is transshipment — routing goods through intermediate countries or third-party entities to obscure that they originated in China and to avoid applicable tariffs. Employees who observe goods being routed through intermediary countries before entering the United States, particularly where the routing appears to serve no legitimate commercial purpose, may be witnessing this type of conduct.

Undervaluation, Misdescription, and Shell Companies

The complaint also alleges that the defendants fraudulently undervalued and misdescribed merchandise via a scheme that involved multiple shell companies, making or causing materially false statements and omissions to CBP. Insiders may notice discrepancies between what is declared to CBP and what internal purchase orders, supplier communications, or company records actually show — for example, invoices that understate the value of imported merchandise or misdescribe product categories to attract lower duty rates.

Pressure Points That May Signal a Problem

Employees may also experience pressure from management to use particular customs brokers, intermediary entities, or documentation practices that do not reflect the true nature of goods or their origin. Recognizing these pressure points — alongside the structural red flags described above — is often how a potential customs duty fraud whistleblower first identifies that something may be wrong. [MONEY PAGE LINK HERE] Antidumping and countervailing duties fraud is a closely related area of enforcement that insiders in the same industries may also encounter.

What This Enforcement Action May Signal About DOJ and CBP Priorities

The Uni-Tile civil filing on October 7, 2026, followed criminal charges announced on December 18, 2025, against Pan, Uni-Tile, and several other parties — charges that include conspiracy, wire fraud, smuggling, and international money laundering. This parallel-track approach may be significant for anyone with knowledge of similar conduct.

Parallel Civil and Criminal Tracks

Criminal charges against Pan and Uni-Tile were announced on December 18, 2025, less than a year before the civil filing on October 7, 2026. This parallel-track strategy — combining criminal charges including conspiracy, wire fraud, smuggling, and international money laundering with a civil suit under the Tariff Act — may increase pressure on defendants and co-conspirators and suggests coordinated enforcement rather than isolated action. As Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate stated, the filing “reflects the Justice Department’s unwavering commitment to enforcing the nation’s trade laws and holding accountable those who attempt to evade them.”

A Dedicated Trade Fraud Task Force

To combat trade fraud, including avoidance of import duties, the Justice Department created a Trade Fraud Task Force, which partners with CBP and other law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with United States trade laws. The involvement of this dedicated task force may indicate that customs duty evasion is a sustained enforcement priority. Individuals with knowledge of similar schemes may be in a position to bring that information to the government.

The False Claims Act Path for Customs Tariff Fraud Whistleblowers

Where customs duty evasion involves false statements made in connection with goods sold to or through federal government contracts, or other federally regulated import programs, the False Claims Act may provide an additional avenue for a whistleblower. Under 31 U.S.C. § 3729, any person who knowingly presents a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval, or knowingly makes a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim, is liable to the United States government. Under 31 U.S.C. § 3730, a person may bring a civil action for a violation of section 3729 for the person and for the United States Government. The statute also provides retaliation protections for individuals who report fraud.

FAQ: Customs Tariff Fraud Whistleblower Questions

What share of a recovery can a customs tariff fraud whistleblower receive under the False Claims Act?

Under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(1), if the government proceeds with a qui tam action, the relator shall receive at least 15 percent but not more than 25 percent of the proceeds of the action or settlement, depending on the extent to which the person substantially contributed to the prosecution of the action. If the government declines to intervene and the relator proceeds, the relator may receive between 25 and 30 percent under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(2). These ranges are subject to the provisions and limitations set out in the statute.

Does a customs tariff fraud case have to involve a government contract to qualify under the False Claims Act?

Whether a particular customs duty evasion scheme gives rise to False Claims Act liability depends on the specific facts — including whether false statements were made in connection with a claim for payment or approval by the federal government. 31 U.S.C. § 3729 sets out the categories of conduct that may give rise to liability. An attorney experienced in handling these matters can evaluate whether a specific situation meets the legal requirements; no outcome can be assured in advance.

What protections does the False Claims Act provide against retaliation?

31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) provides that any employee, contractor, or agent who is discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment because of lawful acts done in furtherance of an action under the False Claims Act shall be entitled to all relief necessary to make that employee, contractor, or agent whole. Such relief may include reinstatement, two times the amount of back pay, interest on back pay, and compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the discrimination.

If practices like these look familiar from your own workplace, you can discuss what you have seen with a Price Armstrong attorney confidentially and at no cost. Call (888) 670-9542 or use the secure evaluation form below.