Customs Fraud Action Against The Sporn Company

Case Name:
United States of America ex rel. Steven Adler v. The Sporn Company, Inc. and Bixler’s Inc.
Filed in:
U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont
Docket:
[Case No.: 1:24-cv-00617]

Case Summary

The Complaint alleges that, between 2016 and 2020, The Sporn Company (“TSC”) and its wholly owned subsidiary Bixler’s, Inc. (“Bixler’s Jewelers”; together, the “Defendants”) manufactured in excess of $16 million worth of jewelry at plants in Montreal, Canada, and then imported the goods into the U.S. without marking them with their country of origin, without informing the government that they owed 10% marking duty on these unmarked products, and without paying the millions of dollars in customs duties they owed.

Federal law requires importers to “legibly, indelibly, and permanently” mark each article imported into the U.S. with its country of origin. Importers that fail to do this are subject to a 10 percent “marking” duty for each imported article without its country of origin clearly marked on the item. A whistleblower (or “relator”) can bring a lawsuit on behalf of the United States to recover these duties and share in the Government’s recovery.

The case was initially filed in 2020 under the reverse provisions of the False Claims Act. On July 7, 2023, Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight filed an Amended Complaint further detailing Defendants’ alleged FCA violations, including through the sale of the “Devotion Diamonds” jewelry line and official licensed jewelry—jewelry marked with hundreds of popular American trademarks, including the Marines, UFC, Major League Baseball, Ghostbusters, and Star Trek—at locations including Bixler’s Jewelers flagship store in New York.

The Complaint also alleges that, in 2016, TSC acquired Bixler’s Jewelers and its “America’s Oldest Jewelers” line and thereafter promoted its Canadian-made products as American-made.

The lawsuit seeks a judgment against Defendants equal to three times the amount of damages the Government has sustained because of Defendants’ alleged customs fraud, and that the Plaintiff-Relator be awarded the maximum award allowed under the FCA.

On May 15, 2025, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss the case. Litigation is proceeding in the District of Vermont.