Mismarking goods imported into the United States can result in the assessment of marking duties. Sometimes, country of origin can be mismarked in order to market goods more successfully in the United States. Often, however, when goods are declared to Customs and Border Patrol as having come from one country when really they are from another, it is an attempt to benefit from a favorable trade agreement, such as USMCA, or to avoid anti-dumping or countervailing duties assessed on goods from particular countries.

It will often the require the knowledge or information of an insider for CBP to detect such frauds, particularly if imported goods actually came from one country to the U.S., despite having been manufactured elsewhere.

Some cases are identified below; all information comes from public sources. The summaries below contain some information that may be allegations only, as the settlements do not necessarily entail an admission of fault.

U.S. ex rel. Life Legal Defense Foundation v. Danco Laboratories (2023)

Danco Laboratories faced claims that it failed to comply with U.S. customs regulations requiring imported pharmaceuticals to bear accurate country of origin markings. The complaint alleged that Danco intentionally obscured or misrepresented the origin of certain products to avoid paying marking duties, thus violating both customs laws and the FCA. The relator argued that these practices posed risks to public health by potentially misleading consumers and regulators about the product's true origin.

U.S. ex rel. Vogel v. OMNI Business Systems, Inc. (2023)

OMNI Business Systems faced allegations of violating the Trade Agreements Act (TAA) by falsely claiming products offered under federal contracts were manufactured in designated countries, such as the U.S. or other TAA-compliant nations. In reality, some products originated from non-compliant countries, like China. The complaint asserted that OMNI’s misrepresentation led to unfair competition and compromised the integrity of federal contracting requirements, impacting public trust in government procurement.

U.S. ex rel. Aylwin v. Gardner-Gibson, Inc. (2021)

Gardner-Gibson, Inc. was alleged to have imported roofing underlayment products from China without proper country of origin markings. The complaint argued that the company knowingly omitted or mislabeled the origin on product labels to evade customs duties, violating FCA provisions. The whistleblower, a former employee, claimed that Gardner-Gibson’s practices enabled it to undercut competitors who were following the marking laws, providing the company with an unfair advantage in the market.

U.S. ex rel. Simmons v. Samsung Electronic America, Inc. (2018)

Samsung was alleged to have violated the TAA by misrepresenting the country of origin for products sold under General Services Administration (GSA) Multiple Award Schedule contracts. The relator contended that Samsung labeled products as originating in TAA-compliant countries when they were, in fact, made in non-compliant nations. This misrepresentation allowed Samsung to secure government contracts it might not have qualified for, ultimately undermining the integrity of the GSA procurement system.

U.S. ex rel. Westrick v. Second Chance Body Armor, Inc. (2018)

Dr. Aaron Westrick, a former employee and whistleblower, claimed that Second Chance Body Armor sold bulletproof vests containing Zylon fiber, which deteriorated quickly, compromising the vests' protective quality. The complaint alleged that the company knew about Zylon's degradation but failed to disclose it, thus misrepresenting the safety and quality of the vests. Although the primary focus was product safety, there were additional issues related to misrepresenting the origin and quality of materials to secure contracts.

U.S. ex rel. Dickson v. Toyo Ink Manufacturing Co. (2016)

This case involved allegations that Toyo Ink misrepresented the country of origin of its ink products to evade customs duties on imports. The complaint asserted that Toyo Ink falsely declared the origin of products from countries with higher customs duties, reclassifying them as originating from countries with lower or no duties. By doing so, Toyo Ink allegedly evaded millions in customs duties. The whistleblower, a former employee, claimed this practice was widespread and intentional within the company.

U.S. ex rel. Valenti v. Tai Shan Golden Gain Aluminum, Ltd. (2015)

Tai Shan Golden Gain Aluminum, along with other related companies, faced allegations of misrepresenting the country of origin of imported aluminum extrusions to avoid paying antidumping and countervailing duties imposed on Chinese products. The company allegedly routed Chinese-made aluminum products through third countries to disguise their true origin, enabling them to pay significantly reduced duties. This case exemplified a pattern of Chinese companies using transshipment through third countries to evade U.S. trade laws and tariffs.

U.S. ex rel. Valenti v. C.R. Laurence Co., Inc., et al. (2015)

This case involved allegations against multiple companies, including C.R. Laurence Co., Inc., Southeastern Aluminum Products, Inc., and Waterfall Group LLC, for falsely declaring the origin of aluminum extrusions imported from China to evade antidumping duties. The whistleblower alleged that the companies imported aluminum from China but falsely labeled the products as originating from other countries, avoiding substantial import duties. These allegations highlight issues in the aluminum import market regarding unfair trade practices.

U.S. ex rel. Folliard v. Government Acquisitions, Inc. (2014)

In this case, the relator alleged that Government Acquisitions, Inc. provided products to the U.S. government under false pretenses, asserting compliance with the Trade Agreements Act. The company reportedly misrepresented the origin of goods as being from TAA-designated countries, despite actual manufacturing in non-compliant nations. This case raised significant questions about the standards of origin representation in federal procurement and the consequences of failing to adhere to trade laws and federal regulations.

U.S. ex rel. Folliard v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. (2014)

Smith & Nephew allegedly misrepresented the country of origin of certain medical products sold to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The complaint claimed that the company stated its products were U.S.-made, though they were manufactured in Malaysia, a non-designated country under the TAA. This misrepresentation reportedly led the VA to unknowingly violate procurement regulations, and the case underscored the importance of transparency in federal contracts to ensure compliance with trade agreements.

U.S. ex rel. Greenhouse v. Halliburton Co. (2011)

Bunnatine "Bunny" Greenhouse, a former chief contracting officer, filed a qui tam lawsuit against Halliburton, alleging illegal no-bid contracts related to reconstruction efforts in Iraq. The complaint stated that Halliburton misrepresented the origin and cost of services provided under these contracts, charging the government inflated prices. The case underscored issues of war-time procurement and accountability, as it involved significant taxpayer expenditures on services allegedly provided at non-competitive rates.

U.S. ex rel. Richardson v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (2007)

Former Bristol-Myers Squibb senior manager Daniel Richardson brought this case, alleging that the company engaged in illegal marketing and drug pricing practices, including misrepresenting the origin of products to inflate Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements. The complaint contended that these practices not only defrauded federal programs but also posed risks to patients by obscuring the true origin and safety of pharmaceuticals, ultimately costing taxpayers significantly.