It is common for lawyers practicing in Uruguay to receive inquiries with
Regarding the seizure of vehicles temporarily brought into the country by people who
They entered the country as tourists. The inquiries and the events surrounding them...
They highlight the lack of information that is generally available, or the poor quality of it.
interpretation of certain concepts, all of which leads to situations that do not have, therefore
In general, there is no solution in the country's regulations, nor in those of MERCOSUR.
The Customs Code (1) does not say much when defining the regime applicable to the
Vehicles and Effects of Tourists within the Chapter referring to Customs Regimes
Special provisions. Refers to the provisions of customs legislation on the matter.
Customs legislation on this subject is based on regulations, since it is usually in
Uruguay the Decisions of the Common Market Council (CMC) and the Resolutions of
Common Market Group (GMC) agreements are internalized through Decrees. This case is not the
exception, and a GMC community rule applies here.
The first confusion arises from the incorrect interpretation of the concept of
Tourist as defined in Community law. A tourist is a person residing in a
A State Party temporarily enters the territory of another State Party and remains there
without exceeding the maximum period authorized by the immigration authority. (2) In doing so, he/she may
to bring in a vehicle of their own, when used for tourist travel, and
They will be able to move freely with it. To do so, they must provide proof of, in addition to
certain formal vehicle requirements (documentation, insurance, etc.), which are taken into account
with tourist status according to a document issued by the immigration authority (3). The
The original problem stems from a reality that existed before the pandemic, but which
increased due to this, and it is because in recent years a significant number of
Citizens residing in a MERCOSUR Member State transferred their residence
permanent to another, and in many cases took their vehicle registered in their country "from
"Origin" to the new. Family, business, or purely recreational reasons lead him there.
then to move temporarily to his country “of origin”, without realizing that, by doing so, he enters a delicate situation where his immigration status no longer allows
consider him a tourist and as such, losing the possibility of traveling between countries with
your private vehicle.
These people, upon migrating, begin their process of obtaining permanent residency or have even obtained it.
already obtained, and yet they drive vehicles registered in a different country than the
of their new residence. Either by becoming residents, or by having expressed their vocation
of their stay in their new country of residence, they cease to be tourists and therefore do not
They can drive such vehicles, which invariably constitute an infraction
customs.
Thus, this situation is frequently detected at border customs controls, since
The person presents an identity document from one country, but drives a vehicle
registered elsewhere, or suffers an accident, or commits a common traffic violation and
This inconsistency is found during the document control process.
to report that situation. The consequence? The impounding of the vehicle for a
Alleged customs violation of smuggling, art. 209 of the Customs Code. This
This involves not only the confiscation of the vehicle but also the imposition of fines that exceed...
Much of it is 100% of its customs value. This situation is aggravated if we consider that in
In Uruguay, the importation of used vehicles is prohibited, (4) except in certain cases.
explicitly designated for certain classic cars, special vehicles not available
in the market of importers and vehicles of Uruguayans returning under the protection of
provided for in Law 18.250 and Decree 330/008.
There are also other situations that, while still irregular, almost belong to the
Folklore of certain regions of our country. Thus, it is understood at a popular level (we reiterate)
(that this is absolutely irregular) that a resident of Uruguay can enter a
foreign car to the country as long as it leaves and re-enters the country with it every 90 days.
This has even led to numerous proposals for its regularization through
measures that are generally at odds with the customs regulations governing this matter.
Another situation is that of vehicles properly entered by people who
They do indeed have tourist status and yet they exceed the time limit of
permitted stay of one year. Once this period has elapsed, and after a period
during which a daily fine is applied, the vehicle is considered to be in presumed customs violation, and again, the consequence is confiscation and the imposition of
Fines for a customs violation of smuggling. In this case, we believe it applies.
an excessive punitive criterion. There is no proportionality between the infraction committed and
the sanction that is imposed. This is because the situation is different between someone who has
lost (or never had) tourist status and yet drives a vehicle
registered abroad, and a very different one, that of a person who is
Indeed, the tourist simply failed to comply with the deadline
granted. Following ALAIS (5), one must take into account “…the nature of the
damages caused, the existence of intent and recidivism, and must
to prevent the commission of infractions from being more beneficial to the offender than
compliance with the violated rules.” In this case, a solution should be sought.
less burdensome than helping to resolve a situation that also recurs with
habitual.
Finally, the reality of people's lives has generated situations that in general
These situations have not been foreseen by current regulations. Thus, it is common to see citizens who
reside in a MERCOSUR Member State and have businesses both in their country of
residence as in another. This implies, for example, that one is the holder of a
manufacturing establishment, or an agricultural holding in one of the States Parties,
There, too, a property is rented as a residence, but nevertheless in
The rest of the family resides in another of the States Parties and there is usually also
another business unit, perhaps unrelated to the first ones. It is clear that that
An individual must move from one State Party to another, and yet in neither of the two
He falls into the "tourist" category because he has economic and family interests there.
permanent. He likely receives income or wages and is registered as
contributor to social security. And there is no definition of that here.
“dual residence” for strictly customs purposes (although at this point it should
to have it). The Treaty of Asunción in its Article 1 refers to the free movement between the
States Parties and these individuals certainly comply. However, when moving with
Vehicles registered in one State Party traveling to the other face the risk of being
exposed to seizure and prosecution for a possible customs violation, due to
who, strictly speaking, do not enter for tourism purposes. Fortunately, some courts in MERCOSUR are establishing a line of reasoning through their jurisprudence.
reasoning that is strictly just: to the extent that it is proven that the person
has sufficient proof of dual residence (lease agreements,
taxpayer registration, identity documents or driver's license, among others),
It can be argued that the vehicle's entry was lawful. An interesting point.
An example of this recent position is the Judgment issued in Case No. 1068032-
59.2020.4.01.3400 of the 16th Federal Civil Vara of the SJDF, of the Federal Republic
from Brazil, in a case sponsored by colleague Diogo Bianchi Fassolo, dated 27
August 2021. In this case, the requirements of Article 8 of the Resolution were verified.
The oft-cited GMC: the driver was the one actually driving the vehicle, he could
to prove his residence in the country of registration and also had the
required documents. This is further indicated there through case law citations.
that there is no secrecy or fraud, since for entry the
The documentation is correct, and the vehicle is registered with the license plate of the country of
origin. This trend is unfortunately not yet reflected in the Judgments of the
Uruguayan courts.
From all of the above, different situations that are linked to must be clearly distinguished.
The same applies. However, the motivations, the status of the income holder, and the reasons...
The methods for applying control change substantially depending on the alleged offender.
in one situation or another. It would be interesting if (for once) the legislation paid attention
attention to reality to achieve some small but important adjustments at the level of
Community law and also national law, with respect to vehicles of
tourists in order to avoid unpleasant situations that sometimes seem to go against the
spirit of the set of rules that govern these issues.
1.Law 19.276 of Law 19.276 of September 25, 2014.
2.Art. 3.2 of GMC Resolution 36/02, internalized in Uruguay through the
Decree 92/018.
3.Art. 4.c) of Resolution 36/02 GMC
4.Law 17.887 of August 26, 2005 and its amendments.
5. ALAIS, Horacio Félix. The Principles of Customs Law (2008). Marcial Pons,
Buenos Aires.
Doctor of Law and Social Sciences from the University of the Republic (Uruguay). Master's degree in International Trade and Integration from the University of Montevideo. Professor of Uruguayan Foreign Trade in the International Business Program at the University of Montevideo. He is a member of the Latin American Academy of Customs Law (ALDA) and a partner at Sucesores de Miguel Ángel Castro – Customs Brokers.
