'Made in China' Markings, Removed: The Redi-Bag Customs Fraud Case

New York Packaging II LLC, doing business as Redi-Bag USA, and its chief executive, Jeffrey Rabiea, have agreed to pay a total of $7.3 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by misrepresenting the country of origin of imported plastic retail carrier bags to evade antidumping duties owed to the United States.DOCUMENTED

The Justice Department alleges that Redi-Bag USA and Rabiea knew the polyethylene retail carrier bags, or PRCBs, they imported were manufactured in China, but declared on customs entry forms that the bags originated in Hong Kong instead — allowing the company to avoid an antidumping duty that could run as high as 77.57 percent of the bags' value.DOCUMENTED

The alleged concealment scheme

According to the government's allegations, Redi-Bag USA and Rabiea concealed the bags' true country of origin from multiple parties who might otherwise have flagged the misrepresentation, including the company's own customs broker and U.S. Customs and Border Protection itself.DOCUMENTED The Justice Department alleges the company directed employees to cover up "Made in China" markings on the bags, directed the manufacturer to remove those markings before shipment, and canceled orders after learning that particular shipments would be inspected by customs authorities.DOCUMENTED

The case originated with a qui tam complaint filed under the False Claims Act's whistleblower provisions by John Maierhoffer, a former contracted sales representative for Redi-Bag USA, who filed suit in federal court in 2021.REVIEWED As part of the $7.3 million settlement, Maierhoffer is set to receive approximately $1.33 million — roughly 18 percent of the total recovery — as his relator's share.DOCUMENTED

Why the duty existed in the first place

Antidumping Duty Order No. A-570-886 was imposed specifically on polyethylene retail carrier bags manufactured in China, reflecting a finding that Chinese producers were selling the bags into the U.S. market below fair value, undercutting domestic manufacturers of the same product.REVIEWED Transshipping goods through a third country — falsely declaring an intermediate stop like Hong Kong as the true country of manufacture — is one of the most common methods used to evade country-specific antidumping orders, since duties are typically assessed based on where a product was actually made rather than where it was last handled or shipped from.REVIEWED

Officials' statements

"Companies that benefit from access to U.S. markets must follow U.S. law, including by paying import duties that protect American manufacturers and workers from unfair foreign competition," said Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate of the Justice Department's Civil Division.DOCUMENTED U.S. Attorney Robert Frazer for the District of New Jersey said the settlement demonstrates that businesses accused of evading antidumping duties through unlawful conduct will continue to face investigation and enforcement.REVIEWED U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney S. Scott framed the case as extending beyond a single importer, saying that customs laws depend on consistent enforcement to preserve both the integrity of U.S. borders and a level playing field for companies that comply with trade rules.REVIEWED

Employees were directed to cover or remove "Made in China" markings from the bags, and shipments scheduled for customs inspection were reportedly canceled before they could be examined.

Industry reaction

The settlement drew a public statement of support from U.S. producers of plastic grocery and shopping bags, who have argued that country-of-origin fraud on products like PRCBs directly undercuts domestic manufacturers that pay the duty as required and compete on a fair-value basis.REVIEWED For an industry that has repeatedly flagged transshipment schemes as a source of unfair competition, enforcement actions like this one are viewed as validating years of complaints about the gap between the duties officially owed on Chinese-made goods and what many importers have actually paid.REVIEWED

A pattern across the plastics and packaging trade

The Redi-Bag case follows a string of similar country-of-origin enforcement actions targeting products where U.S. antidumping orders apply specifically to Chinese manufacturing — from aluminum extrusions to packaging materials — reflecting sustained attention from the Justice Department's Trade Fraud Task Force to schemes built around mislabeling rather than outright non-payment.REVIEWED Because these cases typically depend on internal company records — shipping instructions, communications about relabeling, and order-cancellation patterns tied to inspection schedules — they tend to be built from precisely the kind of paper trail whistleblowers with direct access to sales and operations records are positioned to surface.REVIEWED

What the settlement does and doesn't resolve

Like most False Claims Act settlements, the $7.3 million resolution addresses civil liability only; the agreement does not itself constitute a criminal conviction, and the underlying allegations remain allegations rather than judicially established facts.REVIEWED The settlement does not disclose the exact volume of bags at issue or a precise calculation of how the $7.3 million figure was reached relative to the antidumping duties allegedly avoided, though the 77.57 percent duty rate applied to the value of the imported bags means even a modest volume of relabeled shipments could generate a substantial unpaid-duty liability over several years of the alleged scheme.REVIEWED

For importers of goods subject to country-specific antidumping orders more broadly, the case is a reminder that supporting documentation — customs broker communications, manufacturer correspondence, and internal records describing why particular shipments were altered or canceled — can become central evidence in a False Claims Act case years after the shipments themselves cleared customs.REVIEWED The Justice Department continues to encourage individuals with knowledge of similar country-of-origin misrepresentation schemes to bring qui tam actions, noting that whistleblowers who file such suits can share in a percentage of whatever the government ultimately recovers.REVIEWED

Have documents relevant to this story? Reach us through our tips channel.