 DOJ Sues Tile Importer and CEO for $67.9 Million in Duties Over Alleged Transshipment and Shell Importers of Record |
Source |
American Shipper |
Post Date |
10/27/2026 |
|
On September 28, 2026, the Department of Justice filed a civil complaint in the U.S. Court of International Trade against Uni-Tile & Marble, Inc. and its CEO, Xin Mian Pan, seeking $67,922,260.09 in unpaid duties and a $222,537,664.95 fraud penalty under 19 U.S.C. ?1592.
The complaint alleges that Chinese ceramic tile, wooden cabinets and vanities, and quartz surface products subject to antidumping, countervailing, and Section 301 duties were transshipped through Malaysia, undervalued, misdescribed, and later entered under shell importers of record. In our view, the case is a roadmap for importers of AD/CVD-covered goods, their utives, and their sureties on how one set of entries can move from an EAPA determination to criminal ges and a civil penalty suit.
Key Takeaways
? DOJ filed a civil complaint at the U.S. Court of International Trade on September 28, 2026, against Uni-Tile & Marble, Inc. and its CEO, Xin Mian Pan, under 19 U.S.C. ?1592.
? The fraud counts seek $67,922,260.09 in unpaid duties and a $222,537,664.95 penalty, with gross negligence and negligence pleaded in the native.
? The complaint alleges transshipment through Malaysia, undervaluation, misdescription, and entries under shell importers of record covering approximately 503 entries.
? The civil suit follows an EAPA evasion determination, CBP penalty proceedings, and a separate criminal indictment that also names a licensed customs broker.
? In our view, importers of AD/CVD-covered goods should verify every importer of record on their entries and support origin with production evidence now.
What the Government Alleges
The Department of Justice announced the suit on October 7, 2026, describing the customs duties and fraud penalties sought as exceeding $280 million. DOJ stated that the complaint seeks to enforce CBP? demand for duties and penalties under 19 U.S.C. ?1592(a) against Uni-Tile and Mr. Pan jointly and severally.
According to the complaint, Uni-Tile is a California corporation with locations in Hayward, San Francisco, and San Jose, and Mr. Pan served as its CEO and CFO and controlled its daily operations. The complaint covers approximately 503 entries made between approximately September 22, 2018, and August 28, 2023.
The complaint describes four alleged practices:
? Transshipment. Routing Chinese merchandise through Malaysia and declaring Malaysia as the country of origin, using two Malaysian companies the complaint identifies as South Wales Furniture SDN BHD and LLWF Cabinets & Stone SDN BHD.
? Undervaluation. Declaring entered values lower than the amounts actually paid to the Chinese manufacturers.
? Misdescription. Entering quartz surface products as artificial stone or granite, which the complaint states are not subject to the AD/CVD orders.
? Shell importers of record. According to the complaint, after a CBP investigation, entries were filed under other companies as importer of record, including Green Mountains Trading, Jos Materials, Uncle John Granite and Marble, New Generation Surfaces, and Santa Flo Commercial. The complaint counts approximately 372 entries listing Uni-Tile as importer of record and approximately 130 entries, plus one attempted entry, listing the shell companies.
The merchandise falls under AD/CVD orders on three Chinese product lines: ceramic tile, wooden cabinets and vanities, and quartz surface products. For ceramic tile, the complaint lists a combined AD/CVD cash deposit rate of 689.50%. The complaint also cites Section 301 duties of 25% ad valorem on certain Chinese products.
Four Counts, Three Culpability Levels
The government pleads fraud as its primary theory, with gross negligence and negligence in the native, and a separate count for aiding and abetting the shell importers of record. The amounts below are as stated in the complaint.
Under 19 U.S.C. ?1592(c)(1), the maximum civil penalty for a fraudulent violation is the domestic value of the merchandise. The complaint identifies $222,537,664.95 as that domestic value. The complaint states that Uni-Tile and Mr. Pan have not paid any part of CBP? penalty or duty demand.
The complaint also identifies Hua Liang Xie, owner of Oriox Customs Broker Co., as Uni-Tile? primary customs broker. Mr. Xie is not a defant in the civil case.
How CBP and DOJ Built the Case
The civil complaint and the U.S. Attorney? Office release on the criminal case lay out the following sequence.
The Parallel Criminal Case
On December 18, 2025, the U.S. Attorney? Office for the Northern District of California announced an indictment ging Mr. Pan, Uni-Tile & Marble, Uni-Stone & Cabinet, Hua Liang Xie, whom the release describes as a licensed customs broker, PRC national Jinhua Wang, and Shenzhen Top & Profit International Forwarding Co. Ltd. The ges include conspiracy, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, smuggling, and entry of goods by means of false statements, with international money laundering ges against Mr. Pan and his two companies.
The criminal release alleges more than $109 million in evaded duties across approximately 520 shipments. Those figures come from the criminal release and differ from the figures pleaded in the civil complaint. The release states that an indictment is only an allegation and that the defants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. For the civil case, DOJ? press release states that the claims in the complaint are allegations only and that liability has not been determined.
DTL? read: This sequence shows how a single set of entries can produce administrative, criminal, and civil exposure at the same time, for the company, its utive, and its customs broker. In our experience, the EAPA stage is where an importer still has the most room to shape the record, and the pre-penalty and penalty stages are the administrative windows to contest the culpability level before a case is referred to DOJ.
What Importers Should Do Now
The following are DTL? recommations for importers of products covered by AD/CVD orders or Section 301 duties, particularly goods that move through third countries.
1. Confirm the importer of record on every entry. Pull your ACE reports and compare the importer of record on each entry against the company that ordered, paid for, and owns the goods. An unfamiliar importer of record on goods you control is a warning sign.
2. Support country of origin with production evidence. For goods from transshipment-risk countries, keep factory production records, raw material sourcing, and payment trails, not only certificates of origin. 3. Treat an EAPA notice, CF-28, or pre-penalty notice as an enforcement event. Engage customs counsel before you respond.
4. Evaluate prior disclosure and the DOJ path together.
5. Review your customs broker relationship. The indictment names a licensed customs broker as a defant. Confirm that your broker? entry practices match your instructions and your records.
6. Know your individual and bond exposure. The civil complaint names the CEO individually, and CBP issued duty demands to the sureties. Executives and finance teams should understand both before an enforcement matter s.
7. Diligence domestic suppliers of imported goods. As our October 8 article explains, companies that buy imported goods can face liability for knowingly purchasing merchandise imported contrary to law, even if they never dealt with CBP.
|
|
|
|
