Precision Cable Assemblies and Global Engineered Products: The Supplier Spreadsheet Before the Broker Saw It

The Precision Cable Assemblies customs settlement involved over $10 million in payments by the company, Global Engineered Products and their owners to resolve allegations of customs undervaluation fraud. The government alleged that the companies changed suppliers’ full-price spreadsheets before sending them to an unwitting customs broker.

Global Engineered Products initially paid Customs approximately $4.2 million in duties lost through the alleged undervaluation scheme. The companies and their owners then paid another $6 million under the settlement agreement to resolve the alleged duty evasion, including claims under the False Claims Act. The unpaid duties came first. The settlement payment came on top of them.

The companies are based in Brookfield, Wisconsin. Precision Cable Assemblies sells wire harnesses, battery cables and other wiring products, while Global Engineered Products sells power distribution products. Both import goods from China, and the Justice Department announced the resolution on August 8, 2024.

What the United States Alleged About the Supplier Invoices

The government alleged that the companies caused false commercial invoices to reach U.S. Customs and Border Protection from 2016 through November 2021. Two Chinese suppliers sent their invoices as electronic spreadsheets showing the full, actual price of the imported goods. According to the government’s account, the companies altered those spreadsheets to reduce the prices, generally by 70%, and passed the changed invoices to their broker. The broker then unknowingly submitted the false invoices to Customs, the government alleged.

The government alleged that the companies avoided millions of dollars in duties, especially after additional duties were imposed on certain Chinese imports in 2018. Lowering the declared price reduces the duty collected on the shipment, leaving taxpayers short of money the importers owed.

We see the absurdity in the government’s account: the suppliers supplied the actual prices, and the companies allegedly made them less accurate before passing them on. A discount for the paperwork alone. An accountant who knew what the supplier charged and a logistics employee who saw the broker’s attachment could be looking at different versions of the same purchase. Their knowledge connects the commercial transaction to the declaration that determined the government’s duty revenue.

What an Insider Could Compare

The useful customs fraud evidence connects the supplier’s price, the invoice sent onward, the entry and the money paid. In assessing an allegation like this, we would compare the original supplier spreadsheet and correspondence with the version transmitted to the broker. The question is where the price changed, who supplied the replacement and which version reached Customs.

Payment records add another view of the purchase. We would compare the amount paid or owed to the supplier with the price on the invoice used for entry, matching the goods and shipment so the comparison concerns the same transaction. A purchasing employee may know the agreed price, an accounts-payable employee may know the supplier payment, and a logistics employee may know what was forwarded to the broker.

The distinction matters because transaction value starts with the price actually paid or payable for goods sold for export to the United States. Here, the government’s allegation focused on reducing the supplier’s own stated prices before the invoices reached the broker.

The entry summary supplies the government-facing side of that comparison. Under the customs entry law, it carries the declared value, classification and duty rate.

What Trade Data Can Add

The World Customs Organization’s 2015 paper Mirror Analysis and Revenue Fraud describes comparing one country’s imports with its trading partners’ exports to identify differences in quantity, weight or value. Where the importing country reports a lower value but similar quantities, it proposes examining individual importers’ declarations for signs of undervaluation.

An employee’s supplier file takes the inquiry closer to the decision itself: what price the business received and what price it sent onward. Applied to the government’s allegations here, the important comparison is between versions of the invoice for the same goods.

Why the Broker’s Role Matters

The government’s account placed the alleged invoice alteration with Precision Cable Assemblies and Global Engineered Products. It described the broker as unknowingly submitting the false invoices. For an employee who sees the broker handle the filing, that distinction matters: the information the company gave the broker is part of the story.

The ADCO settlement announced in December 2023 involved a different allegation. There, the importer, its broker and Chinese suppliers were among the parties resolving allegations of using lower invoices for Customs and higher invoices reflecting the actual transaction. Both cases concerned different prices for the same goods, but the government described different roles for the broker.

An invoice matching the broker’s filing may still lead back to an earlier supplier version with a different price. The broker’s attachment is one point in that chain, and the original spreadsheet is another.

A Former Employee Brought the Case

A former Precision Cable Assemblies employee brought the qui tam case, and the United States joined it. The Justice Department reported that the former employee received a $1.26 million whistleblower reward.

Customs auditors, import specialists and attorneys handled the matter alongside Homeland Security Investigations agents and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Their work addressed the customs fraud allegations that the former employee brought to the government.

A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers. The usual range is 15% to 25% when the government joins the case, as it did here, and 25% to 30% when it does not. Those ranges are subject to the False Claims Act’s award requirements. Talk with us about how your contribution to the case, any public disclosure and any role in the conduct affect the award available. For someone who knows the supplier’s actual price, this case shows why the view inside the purchase matters alongside the paperwork sent to Customs. The government’s account puts the alleged change inside the companies, before the broker received the invoices.

You Know the Price Before the File Changed

If you saw a supplier’s actual price replaced before an invoice went to the broker, speak to one of our Whistleblower Experts about the price that changed. We work with you to build your strongest customs whistleblower case around that knowledge and bring in customs fraud whistleblower lawyers who understand invoice alterations and unpaid duties. We stay with you as your account of the purchase becomes a case for recovering the government’s money.