The territory of the Argentine Republic is divided into different customs areas, this is in accordance with the provisions of Law 22.415 (Customs Code), keeping a direct relationship with a particular regime for each of these spaces.
In this sense, the law defines its main customs area as the Customs Territory, which, as the rule clearly teaches, can be of a general nature (TAG) or special (TAE). Although in both the same system of tariffs and prohibitions of an economic nature is applied to imports and exports, it is true that in the TAE it will be different from the TAG because it conceives benefits regarding tax reductions, as well as regarding the lesser scope of the prohibitions that may be applied.
But both maintain the guideline of having zones that have the purpose of establishing the powers of the customs service to exercise its essential task: the control of international merchandise traffic, that is, the inspection of imports and exports.
It is here, where the law has established within the Customs Territory, the recognized primary customs zone and secondary customs zone, and within the latter a special surveillance zone. As indicated, this delimitation finds the purpose of providing the framework of special regulations to provide customs control in each of these areas, conceiving a strong power of the customs bodies in the primary zone, precisely because in this territorial space all the customs operations necessary for import traceability are carried out, which starts from the arrival of the means of transport, unloading, verification, until its authorization for release to the place and in the same way, with respect to exports until its departure, after being loaded onto the means that will serve to transport the merchandise to its destination.
However, in the secondary zone, which is recognized by law as the rest of the space of the Customs Territory that is not a primary zone, although Customs will not have the maximum powers that it has in the primary zone, it certainly continues to hold the control powers.
It is here, where its function is based on conceiving the control that those goods that may have entered, have been duly delivered to the market and complying with the regime imposed for these goods, both in terms of taxes, as well as other requirements that may correspond.
To this end, customs bodies are faced with the need for certain legal tools with an operational scope that can facilitate this exercise of control within an area where, although they retain the power of control, those greater functions that they can apply within the primary zone do not reside.
One of the preventive measures of this type is the customs tax stamp system, which has the purpose of enabling more effective identification of merchandise transiting through the customs territory, showing that it has entered through legal channels and not through others.
In this context, the regulations established that new or used merchandise of foreign origin - detailed - will be subject to identification through the application of customs tax stamps, in accordance with the conditions and with the formalities specified in each case.
For these purposes, customs tax stamps are printed in fugitive ink and numbered consecutively on white, watermarked or similar paper of the corresponding color, the design of which must be approved by a general resolution of the AFIP and its provision will be the responsibility of the Budget and Finance Directorate.
Another measure is the obligation that all sales or transfers of goods must be recorded as the only evidence on the invoices or equivalent documents used for such purposes, the number and year of the import clearance corresponding to them.
Undoubtedly, the need to have this type of measures is essential for the exercise of control by the customs service, in a space where the universe of imported goods for consumption have free circulation and this can make it possible to camouflage those illegally entered goods among those that have complied with the regulatory frameworks for their importation.
Likewise, the fiscal guard carried out by Customs in the secondary zone, warns of a protective effect in favor of legal trade, which, when faced with the entry of merchandise omitting compliance with the law, leads to causing a harmful effect for the rest, which if it was conducted properly.
New rule
On October 9, 2024, General Resolution (AFIP) No. 5581/24 was published, establishing a new tool design to enable the exercise of customs control in the secondary zone.
This regulation establishes a digital system, which we can call by its acronym SIDIP - Digital Product Identification System -, becoming a single mandatory regime for the identification of goods, both new and used, imported for consumption. That is, those brought into the customs territory through a definitive import destination (nationalized).
In this course of action, Resolution 2522/87 (ANA) regulating the identification scheme using paper stamps, referred to above, is also repealed.
The regulation highlights the advancement of technology that has made it necessary to implement new electronic tools for the identification of imports. This approach is in line with the provisions of Decree of Necessity and Urgency DNU No. 70 of 2023, which establishes that the procedures, requests and procedures necessary for compliance with customs formalities, operations or obligations, including import and export destinations, must be carried out through the use of electronic computer services.
Conclusion
Trade facilitation is a fundamental point that has always been demanded by the importers and exporters sector, which does not have a guideline to prevent or suppress control exercises by Customs, but, on the contrary, to ensure that these, without losing their effectiveness, do so without resorting to tedious, bureaucratic, costly and perhaps not so transparent processes.
The push for trade facilitation that has been developing within the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Customs Organization (WCO) itself has a causal link with the need to take advantage of the channels provided by the digital, computer and electronic systems that this new era provides.
The understanding of these objectives seems to be aligned with the measures being dictated within Customs, such as the decision to digitalize the identification system for imported goods.
Now, this decision should be accompanied by the replacement or repeal by the Executive Branch of Decree No. 4531 of June 16, 1965, regarding the requirement to include within the invoice or the document that transfers the goods at the stage of their commercialization and within the territory, those data related to the import operation; which, although it may have been relevant when it was issued at that time, in order to enable the monitoring of the commercial traceability of imported goods within a secondary zone, it is eloquent that with digitalization, both in terms of invoicing, as well as elements that are now required for the digital tracking of imported goods, it cannot remain in force..
Especially when in various situations, having duly entered the merchandise and having been so confirmed by the customs service itself, a complaint is filed for the alleged violation of article 991 of the CA, seeking to impose a major sanction for a mere, in our opinion, formal non-compliance with this 1965 regulation.
In this sense, the tools necessary to provide the customs body with instruments for its better exercise of control must remain, but aligned with effective mechanisms that serve their purpose, that is, "preventing the illegal entry of imported goods into the territory." And not the supervision of formal issues that divert attention from the true purpose that is sought to be achieved with the use of these measures in the secondary customs zone.
The author is a lawyer and member of the Institute of Customs Law and International Trade of the Argentine Association of Constitutional Justice.
