Customs Enforcement in 2026: U.S. and EU Importer Risks

By Simran Sethi, Senior Industry Solutions Consultant, Global Trade Intelligence, Descartes

Tariffs make headlines because the cost appears immediately. Customs enforcement often arrives later, when an authority asks the importer to rebuild the declared classification, value, origin or duty treatment from earlier records. The customs entry is only one part of that file.

Supplier declarations, purchase orders, intercompany invoices, transport records and broker instructions may sit in different systems, with different owners. The gaps between them are becoming easier to find.

• Customs enforcement now tests whether an importer can reconstruct the facts behind classification, origin, valuation and duty treatment.
• A new tariff action creates a new burden of proof, often involving records held outside the customs team.
• United States authorities are placing more weight on importer accountability, while European authorities combine national controls with cross-border investigations.
• Automation reduces risk when it preserves the source and approval history behind a customs decision.

In the United States (U.S.), Executive Order 14411, issued on June 3, 2026, directs the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection to strengthen importer vetting, collect more ownership and supply-chain information, increase audits and develop an Importer of Record “good standing” standard. It also identifies forced labor, undervaluation, rules of origin, origin marking, product safety and duty collection as priorities.

That direction has now begun moving into operational enforcement. Under an August 2026 CBP notice, enhanced verification of new and existing Importer of Record information will begin on September 18, 2026. If CBP determines that Form 5106 information is inaccurate or incomplete, it will immediately void the importer number, preventing its use to enter merchandise. Physical addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers and taxpayer identification information must belong directly to the importer, and a broker submitting the form must hold the power of attorney executed directly with that importer. Importer identity data is therefore becoming an entry-continuity risk, not merely an administrative record.

Importer identity data is therefore becoming an entry-continuity risk, not merely an administrative record.

This approach places the importing entity under closer examination. Compliance history, affiliates, ownership structure and financial capacity may influence how customs authorities assess risk. Customs enforcement is moving upstream from the declaration into the importer’s governance.

Two 2026 settlements show financial consequences.  An aluminum processing company and related entities agreed to pay $549.5 million to resolve Department of Justice allegations under the False Claims Act concerning unpaid anti-dumping and countervailing duties on Chinese aluminum extrusions. A group of steel companies and their part-owner separately agreed to pay $19 million to resolve allegations that steel manufactured in Europe and Asia had been declared as Canadian or U.S. origin.

 Both settlements resolved civil False Claims Act allegations. In the first matter, however, the related companies had previously been convicted by a jury in 2021 of conspiracy and other offenses arising from the conduct. The steel settlement expressly stated that the claims were allegations and that there had been no determination of liability. Their importance lies in the records under review: product form, production history, origin, transaction structure, and tariff treatment. A tariff action can turn an old product-description problem into a major exposure.

EU customs enforcement remains distributed. National customs administrations conduct controls, the European Commission administers the EU’s trade-defence measures, the European Anti-Fraud Office conducts administrative anti-fraud investigations, and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office investigates and prosecutes crimes affecting the Union’s financial interests in participating Member States.

The March 2026 political agreement on EU Customs Reform points toward more centralized risk analysis through a new EU Customs Authority and shared Customs Data Hub, although the Hub is scheduled to begin operating for e-commerce only in 2028.

At the end of 2025, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office had 981 active value-added tax and customs fraud cases linked to an estimated €45.01 billion in damage. Those cases represented 27 percent of active investigations and 67 percent of the estimated financial damage.

Investigators mapped trade flows, identified high-risk consignments and coordinated controls across several Member States

An April 2026 investigation described by the European Anti-Fraud Office shows how customs enforcement works across borders. Investigators mapped trade flows, identified high-risk consignments and coordinated controls across several Member States in a scheme involving textiles, footwear, electric bicycles and other goods. The inquiry examined possible abuse of transit arrangements and customs procedure 42, which defers value-added tax when goods are sent to another Member State.

Authorities compared the declaration with the movement of the goods. Transport records, X-ray images, logistics data, and the claimed destination can reveal whether the commercial account is credible. Importers may review those records separately; investigators can view them as one transaction.

Origin creates the same problem. In March 2026, a German court convicted an individual in a case involving Chinese hairdressing foil declared as originating in Myanmar after minimal processing there. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office reported that approximately €610,000 in anti-dumping duties had been evaded and that customers, unaware of the true production history, had also submitted incorrect declarations. The judgment was subject to appeal.

Supplier information can pass customs enforcement risk to a customer that did not design the arrangement. An origin statement is only as reliable as the production facts behind it.

Every tariff action introduces questions about scope, origin, routing and documentation. From July 1, 2026, Article 59a of the Union Customs Code Implementing Regulation, introduced by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/1422, requires proof of direct transport or non-alteration as part of the proof of non-preferential origin for certain U.S.-origin goods claiming adjusted EU duties or tariff quotas. Importers may therefore need to prove what happened while goods moved through an intermediate country.

Customs valuation raises a similar evidence problem. In an October 2025 judgment concerning the former Community Customs Code, Grupo Massimo Dutti SA v Administración General del Estado, the Court of Justice held that an earlier sale could not qualify as the sale for export where, at the time of that sale, it had not been determined whether the goods would be marketed in the Union or re-exported to a third country. The case remains a useful warning: the first invoice recorded in an enterprise resource planning system does not, by itself, establish the correct customs value.

Many customs enforcement findings begin with ordinary records that no longer agree. Procurement retains a supplier declaration, finance records an intercompany price, the broker files a different description, and the product master carries a classification copied from an older model.

Good governance starts with ownership. Importers should know who approved a classification, which facts support origin, why a transaction was selected for valuation and when the evidence was last reviewed. A tariff action should trigger a product-level review alongside the duty-rate update. Automation can support customs enforcement readiness by applying current trade content, detecting inconsistent values, flagging expired origin documents and preserving the approval trail.

The most difficult audit finding is often procedural: nobody can identify which record was authoritative when the entry was filed. By the time an authority reconstructs the transaction from outside the business, the importer should not be seeing its own evidence chain for the first time.

As trade enforcement becomes increasingly intelligence-driven, companies need tools that combine authoritative trade content, automation, and analytics.

Descartes helps importers strengthen their compliance programs through solutions that provide:

• global tariff and trade content covering more than 190 countries
• advanced HS/HTS classification search capabilities
• integration with ERP, GTM, and customs filing systems
• analytics to identify anomalies in import data
• audit-ready documentation and governance workflows

Descartes CustomsInfo™  helps compliance professionals apply current trade content, manage item-level classification decisions, compare ERP, classification and broker-entry data, and maintain supporting documentation and workflow controls. These capabilities can improve consistency across systems and strengthen an importer’s ability to explain and defend its customs positions during audits or investigations.