DOJ Sues Tile Importer and CEO for $67.9 Million in Duties Over Alleged Transshipment and Shell Importers of File

On September 28, 2026, the Department of Justice filed a civil grievance within the U.S. Court of International Trade towards Uni-Tile & Marble, Inc. and its CEO, Xin Mian Pan, searching for $67,922,260.09 in unpaid duties and a $222,537,664.95 fraud penalty below 19 U.S.C. § 1592. The grievance alleges that Chinese ceramic tile, wood cupboards and vanities, and quartz floor merchandise topic to antidumping, countervailing, and Section 301 duties have been transshipped by Malaysia, undervalued, misdescribed, and later entered below shell importers of report. In our view, the case is a roadmap for importers of AD/CVD-covered items, their executives, and their sureties on how one set of entries can transfer from an EAPA willpower to legal expenses and a civil penalty swimsuit. 

Key Takeaways 

• DOJ filed a civil grievance on the U.S. Court of International Trade on September 28, 2026, towards Uni-Tile & Marble, Inc. and its CEO, Xin Mian Pan, below 19 U.S.C. § 1592. 

• The fraud counts search $67,922,260.09 in unpaid duties and a $222,537,664.95 penalty, with gross negligence and negligence pleaded within the different. 

• The grievance alleges transshipment by Malaysia, undervaluation, misdescription, and entries below shell importers of report masking roughly 503 entries. 

• The civil swimsuit follows an EAPA evasion willpower, CBP penalty proceedings, and a separate legal indictment that additionally names a licensed customs dealer. 

• In our view, importers of AD/CVD-covered items ought to confirm each importer of report on their entries and help origin with manufacturing proof now. 

What the Government Alleges 

The Department of Justice introduced the swimsuit on October 7, 2026, describing the customs duties and fraud penalties sought as exceeding $280 million. DOJ acknowledged that the grievance seeks to implement CBP’s demand for duties and penalties below 19 U.S.C. § 1592(a) towards Uni-Tile and Mr. Pan collectively and severally. Read the DOJ press release and the complaint. 

According to the grievance, Uni-Tile is a California company with places in Hayward, San Francisco, and San Jose, and Mr. Pan served as its CEO and CFO and managed its every day operations. The grievance covers roughly 503 entries made between roughly September 22, 2018, and August 28, 2023. 

The grievance describes 4 alleged practices: 

• Transshipment. Routing Chinese merchandise by Malaysia and declaring Malaysia because the nation of origin, utilizing two Malaysian corporations the grievance identifies as South Wales Furniture SDN BHD and LLWF Cabinets & Stone SDN BHD. 

• Undervaluation. Declaring entered values decrease than the quantities truly paid to the Chinese producers. 

• Misdescription. Entering quartz floor merchandise as synthetic stone or granite, which the grievance states are usually not topic to the AD/CVD orders. 

• Shell importers of report. According to the grievance, after a CBP investigation, entries have been filed below different corporations as importer of report, together with Green Mountains Trading, Jos Materials, Uncle John Granite and Marble, New Generation Surfaces, and Santa Flo Commercial. The grievance counts roughly 372 entries itemizing Uni-Tile as importer of report and roughly 130 entries, plus one tried entry, itemizing the shell corporations. 

The merchandise falls below AD/CVD orders on three Chinese product strains: ceramic tile, wood cupboards and vanities, and quartz floor merchandise. For ceramic tile, the grievance lists a mixed AD/CVD money deposit fee of 689.50%. The grievance additionally cites Section 301 duties of 25% advert valorem on sure Chinese merchandise. 

Four Counts, Three Culpability Levels 

The authorities pleads fraud as its major concept, with gross negligence and negligence within the different, and a separate depend for aiding and abetting the shell importers of report. The quantities beneath are as acknowledged within the grievance. 

Under 19 U.S.C. § 1592(c)(1), the utmost civil penalty for a fraudulent violation is the home worth of the merchandise. The grievance identifies $222,537,664.95 as that home worth. The grievance states that Uni-Tile and Mr. Pan haven’t paid any a part of CBP’s penalty or obligation demand. 

The grievance additionally identifies Hua Liang Xie, proprietor of Oriox Customs Broker Co., as Uni-Tile’s major customs dealer. Mr. Xie is just not a defendant within the civil case. 

How CBP and DOJ Built the Case 

The civil grievance and the U.S. Attorney’s Office launch on the legal case lay out the next sequence. 

The Parallel Criminal Case 

On December 18, 2025, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California introduced an indictment charging Mr. Pan, Uni-Tile & Marble, Uni-Stone & Cabinet, Hua Liang Xie, whom the discharge describes as a licensed customs dealer, PRC nationwide Jinhua Wang, and Shenzhen Top & Profit International Forwarding Co. Ltd. The expenses embody conspiracy, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, smuggling, and entry of products by the use of false statements, with transnational cash laundering expenses towards Mr. Pan and his two corporations. 

The legal launch alleges greater than $109 million in evaded duties throughout roughly 520 shipments. Those figures come from the legal launch and differ from the figures pleaded within the civil grievance. The launch states that an indictment is simply an allegation and that the defendants are presumed harmless until confirmed responsible past an inexpensive doubt. For the civil case, DOJ’s press launch states that the claims within the grievance are allegations solely and that legal responsibility has not been decided. 

DTL’s learn: This sequence reveals how a single set of entries can produce administrative, legal, and civil publicity on the identical time, for the corporate, its government, and its customs dealer. In our expertise, the EAPA stage is the place an importer nonetheless has probably the most room to form the report, and the pre-penalty and penalty levels are the executive home windows to contest the culpability degree earlier than a case is referred to DOJ. 

What Importers Should Do Now 

The following are DTL’s suggestions for importers of merchandise coated by AD/CVD orders or Section 301 duties, notably items that transfer by third international locations. 

1. Confirm the importer of report on each entry. Pull your ACE stories and evaluate the importer of report on every entry towards the corporate that ordered, paid for, and owns the products. An unfamiliar importer of report on items you management is a warning signal. 
2. Support nation of origin with manufacturing proof. For items from transshipment-risk international locations, hold manufacturing facility manufacturing data, uncooked materials sourcing, and fee trails, not solely certificates of origin. See our Country of Origin Determination & Marking companies. 
3. Treat an EAPA discover, CF-28, or pre-penalty discover as an enforcement occasion. Engage customs counsel earlier than you reply. See our pages on CBP Form 28 and CBP 1592 Penalties. 
4. Evaluate prior disclosure and the DOJ path collectively. As we defined in A Warning for Importers: A CBP Prior Disclosure Does Not Count for DOJ, a CBP prior disclosure is just not a voluntary self-disclosure to DOJ. See additionally our Prior Disclosures to CBP web page.
    
5. Review your customs dealer relationship. The indictment names a licensed customs dealer as a defendant. Confirm that your dealer’s entry practices match your directions and your data. 
6. Know your particular person and bond publicity. The civil grievance names the CEO individually, and CBP issued obligation calls for to the sureties. Executives and finance groups ought to perceive each earlier than an enforcement matter begins. 
7. Diligence home suppliers of imported items. As our October 8 article explains, corporations that purchase imported items can face legal responsibility for knowingly buying merchandise imported opposite to legislation, even when they by no means handled CBP. 

Where the Case Stands and How DTL Can Help 

The civil grievance was filed on September 28, 2026, and it describes the legal case, United States v. Xin Mian Pan, et al., Cr. No. 25-0428 (CRB) (N.D. Cal.), as pending. Status of later docket exercise in both case not confirmed as of October 13, 2026. 

Diaz Trade Law represents importers in CBP penalty proceedings below 19 U.S.C. § 1592, EAPA investigations, prior disclosures, and DOJ commerce fraud inquiries. For extra on the present enforcement atmosphere, see: 

If your organization has obtained an EAPA discover, a CF-28, a pre-penalty discover, or a DOJ inquiry, contact Diaz Trade Law at 305-456-3830 or go to diaztradelaw.com.