The change of government brought with it a significant number of regulations that directly affected the import sector.
With the arrival of DNU 70/2023 (1) that deregulated certain activities and the flexibility in payments that diluted the old debts in installments, a certain air of hope was provoked from the government.
But how many of these measures have been implemented? And how many of these measures are closely linked to trade facilitation?
In order not to stop at just the analysis of the decree, it is worth highlighting that in just one semester, import figures have suffered a fall after the dollar was paired with the increase in the country tax, a tax that is currently at risk of falling with the promise of the Minister of Economy to regulate prices after the sanction of the Basic Law.
However, amidst this backroom, the net dollar has once again started to rise, widening the gap with the free exchange market dollar, so a downward trend in the tax would squander the hope of matching the free dollar.
In the course of these days, AFIP renewed the impossibility for medium-sized companies to use the certificates of non-withholding of taxes until December of this year (2). And this does not reduce the collection in terms of imports, on the contrary, it rejects the certificates authorized by the agency itself to be used in import operations, having to tax the taxes even if they have sufficient fiscal credit and not being able to deduct them in their purchases.
Measures in favour of facilitation
Leaving aside the delay in the dollar and since the promulgation of the DNU, the registration requirements for operators were updated, the registration of new customs brokers was deregulated and the advance consultations of classification and tariff valuation of goods were created through the SITA (Customs Procedures Computer System). These measures, together with other repeals of non-automatic licenses, sworn declarations of product composition and some technical regulations, initially sought to facilitate the scope of imports in the hands of any person or association.
Without taking into account the operational capacity to evaluate each derogation, the majority of imports benefited from the generation of declarations whose fate changed from almost never to twenty-four hours of approval. We are talking about the SEDI, which became a mere report of what is estimated to be imported with a small extension of the tolerance of value or quantity; such is the case of computer goods, minor manufactured products and primary inputs that have suffered, in recent years, the discretion of prior approval.
It should be noted that the implemented system continued to delay approval for those goods that continue to be subject to technical regulations and whose approval is still pending the signature available in the Ministry of Production. Delays of more than 30 days have occurred in the SEDIS subject to Technical Regulations.
The same fate can be observed in the approval of AML (Adaptation to the local market) exception files for labeling. Industrial products whose foreign suppliers cannot carry out the labeling that Argentina adopted for textiles according to MERCOSUR regulations (3), have an approximate delay of 30 days, being only a DDJJ that arises from the express will of the importer and declaration of factory use through a note subject to a definitive import invoice for merchandise that will never be sold in the state in which it is nationalized.
Advance classification and valuation statements
These statements were widely discussed at the time of their publication in the Official Gazette, because they represent a means of declaration that minimises the risks of generating damage or false statements.
The same procedure involves the goods or the demonstration of value based on a specific operation where, after a detailed evaluation of the affected area and the possibility of expanding information, a technical opinion is issued that seeks to be applied responsibly to the operation in question and is not punishable for any direct variation in the conditions of the operation or the product in question.
However, these resources involve specialized technicians in the subjects on the part of customs specialists.
Currently, the deadline for estimating applications exceeds that provided for by the AFIP General Resolutions (4) of 30 days. We are probably facing the same context as the registrations of new operators, since it exceeded all possible expectations, filling up with files and the SITA. Processing times are slowing down and delays are generated almost automatically.
Declaration of direct dispatch to the square
The declaration of direct dispatch to the market according to AFIP General Resolution 5474 is another issue that causes us some uncertainty in operational matters.
Direct dispatch to the market already existed in Law 22415, but with the arrival of the María computer system, advance declaration became impossible since the declaration procedure for an import requires the prior loading of an import manifest by a freight forwarder.
This is where doubts arise regarding the responsibility of the declaration when differences arise regarding what actually arrived in customs territory. Not to mention that according to the consultations carried out, this type of advance declaration made by the agent is not feasible to be carried out for any type of cargo or operator.
So currently the applicability of making that decision and then, through adjustment, being able to generate manual settlements of adjustments according to SICNEA received from all operators (5) is really limited both by the system and by the will of the declarant of the cargo manifest.
Import payment tracking
It was essential to organize SEPAIMPO in order to evaluate the economic measures taken. And in accordance with the instruments issued with the Central Bank, the aim was to affect the largest number of operations of lower value to liquefy “stock debts” against normal operating flow debts.
The BO.P.RE.AL bond issuance measures were the first relief to minimize the pressure of debt passivity abroad and, fully complied with in its three issuances, allowed for the evaluation of the reorganization of future payments and the reduction of the terms of the most affected assets and the smallest or least-volume companies.
The last modification to this law was made with Communication A 8054, which retroactively extends the payment period from 180 to 120 days for goods that are not essential.
Prior to this, communication 7990 was the one that marked the path of reduction for companies in the MSME category, reducing all payments to 30 days from the date of nationalization.
In this regard, it is expected that in the not too distant future, quotas for advance payments will be created that do not correspond to capital goods.
In conclusion, we are faced with a series of measures that have shaken up foreign trade technically, but which, in practice, take time to process and their streamlining is affected by many other variables that must accompany this change, among which we highlight: port streamlining, shifts, availability of operational areas and streamlining of computer procedures.
Sources:
- Decree 70/23.
- AFIP General Resolution 5520/24.
- Res.SCI 549/21.
- AFIP General Res. 5472, 5473 and 5477/24.
- SICNEA General Communications Officer informing LMAN “DEAN” of the Customs Collection Department.
Graduate in Foreign Trade (Universidad de la Marina Mercante), customs broker and customs transport agent. She works as a professor at the University of Belgrano and CAECE.
