By channeling Chinese mobile access equipment through a Polish facility for limited assembly, the importer sidestepped the strict duties imposed on Chinese-origin goods.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has determined that Sinoboom North America, LLC evaded antidumping and countervailing duties (AD/CVDs) on Chinese-made mobile access equipment by routing machines and subassemblies through a subsidiary in Poland and entering them into the United States as Polish-origin merchandise.
The determination, issued under the agency’s Enforce and Protect Act authority, examined whether the finished equipment remained subject to AD/CVDs despite being assembled in a third country—a question with major financial stakes given that the applicable orders include antidumping rates as high as 165.30% and countervailing duty rates as high as 448.80%.
CBP concluded that the applicable antidumping and countervailing duty orders— which include broad anti-circumvention provisions—covered the merchandise regardless of the location of final assembly.
This case illustrates how quickly trade remedies can be undermined when importers rely on third-country routing to avoid duties imposed on Chinese-origin goods. It also highlights an increasingly important distinction for insiders. While CBP’s administrative enforcement process allows competitors or other interested parties to report suspected duty evasion, only the False Claims Act allows whistleblowers to seek financial rewards and legal protections when fraud against the United States is at stake.
An Interested Party Sounds the Alarm
This investigation began after an industry association representing domestic manufacturers alerted U.S. Customs and Border Protection to potential evasion of antidumping and countervailing duties on Chinese-made mobile access equipment.
Antidumping and countervailing duties are special tariffs imposed on certain foreign products to protect U.S. industries from unfair trade practices and foreign subsidies. Schemes designed to circumvent them undercut domestic manufacturers and deprive the government of significant revenue.
The association alleged that such a scheme was unfolding here, with Chinese-origin lifts and subassemblies routed through a Polish facility before being imported into the United States as non-Chinese merchandise. Trade data reinforced those concerns.
After AD/CVD orders on Chinese mobile access equipment took effect, imports of comparable equipment from Poland increased sharply, prompting CBP to open a formal inquiry. The information submitted raised questions about whether third-country assembly was being used to place Chinese-origin components outside the scope of the applicable duty orders.
Inside the Poland Facility: What CBP Found
To evaluate the allegation, U.S. Customs and Border Protection conducted an on-site review of Sinoboom’s facility in Poland. According to the agency, the facility’s operations focused primarily on assembling mobile access equipment using components and subassemblies manufactured in China.
CBP observed that many major components—including boom arms, scissor assemblies, chassis frames, and other structural elements—were fabricated in China before shipment to Poland. Investigators reported that the Polish facility lacked equipment associated with fabrication, welding, machining, or painting, and that much of the work performed there consisted of integrating pre-assembled Chinese-origin subassemblies into finished units.
Documentation reviewed during the site visit confirmed that the majority of key components originated in China and, in some instances, arrived at the Polish facility partially pre-assembled. These findings informed CBP’s analysis of whether the finished equipment fell within the scope of applicable antidumping and countervailing duty orders.
Why the Goods Remained Subject to AD/CVDs
Sinoboom argued that antidumping and countervailing duties should not apply to the finished equipment, as final assembly occurred in Poland and many components originated outside of China. The company also contended that duties should apply, at most, only to discrete Chinese-origin subassemblies rather than to the completed machines imported into the United States.
CBP rejected those arguments, explaining that the applicable antidumping and countervailing duty orders contain broad anti-circumvention provisions. Under those provisions, merchandise assembled in a third country remains subject to AD/CVDs when it incorporates Chinese-origin subassemblies covered by the orders. In other words, the presence of covered Chinese components—not the location of final assembly—controls whether the finished goods fall within the scope of the orders.
CBP further determined that Sinoboom entered the merchandise into the United States in a manner that failed to declare the AD/CVDs legally owed. The agency identified multiple entries where equipment incorporating Chinese-origin subassemblies was imported as non-Chinese merchandise, thereby avoiding significant duties. CBP concluded that these entries “entered through evasion” within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. § 1517 and required the importer to deposit the appropriate duties, with additional enforcement measures available under the statute.
Why This Matters for Customs Fraud Whistleblowers
Although this case arose from a CBP administrative determination rather than a whistleblower lawsuit, it offers important insights for employees working in shipping, manufacturing, supply chain operations, or affiliated facilities. Many customs fraud schemes follow patterns similar to those identified here, including routing goods through third countries and using foreign affiliates to evade antidumping and countervailing duties owed to the United States.
Employees who observe or are instructed to engage in similar practices may have grounds to pursue a whistleblower action under the False Claims Act. Under the statute’s qui tam provisions, whistleblowers may receive 15 to 30 percent of the recovery, depending on the significance of their information and their contribution to the case.
For Potential Whistleblowers: A Clear Message
Cases like Sinoboom’s demonstrate how complex supply chains can obscure the true origin of goods and how quickly AD/CVD evasion can undermine trade remedies designed to protect U.S. manufacturers. They also underscore the essential role insiders play in exposing customs fraud schemes that would otherwise remain hidden.
If you have firsthand information that a company is misstating the origin of imports, routing goods through third countries, or misclassifying products under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule to avoid duties, you may have grounds to bring a claim under the False Claims Act. All communications with counsel are protected by attorney-client privilege.
At Mark A. Strauss Law, we represent whistleblowers worldwide in customs fraud cases and work to hold importers accountable when they evade duties owed to the United States. We offer free, confidential consultations to individuals considering coming forward.
Remember: Fraud is their game. Integrity is yours.
