In recent years, there has been a proliferation of cases before the National Tax Court and the Administrative Litigation Court, in which, in order to determine where the merchandise was classified, it was necessary to carry out a second analysis of the merchandise, with the addition that said merchandise was perishable.
In this context, Customs occasionally delayed notifying the affected party of the results of the analysis, thus giving rise to repeated disputes regarding the nullity of the customs procedure, a conflict based on the impossibility of carrying out a second analysis, to which the affected party had the right.
In these cases, a second analysis would have allowed the interested party to demonstrate that the documented merchandise corresponded to the declared tariff item and not to the one determined by Customs, based on the first report prepared in the laboratory.
Recently, the General Resolution 5540/2024 AFIP repealed General Resolution No. 3.891/2016 (AFIP) and approved the Annex (IF-2024-01762057-AFIP-SGDADVCOAD#SDGCTI) called “GENERAL CONDITIONS AND PROCEDURES ON SAMPLES AND ANALYSIS”, providing clear definitions and establishing precisely how the procedure will be carried out, seeking to overcome the problems experienced in the past.
Among the salient aspects, it should be noted that a set of identical samples will be taken in the presence of the importer, the exporter or whoever they authorize.
The sample extraction report will also be issued by the Sample Traceability System (STM) and will be signed by the participants, which implies the consent and conformity of the extraction procedure. It establishes that in the event that the interested parties make well-founded observations, a new extraction will be carried out, until the consent of all the participants is obtained, a requirement of vital importance since it will prevent nullity due to formal issues, ensuring that the procedure is transparent and effective for individuals, without undermining customs control.
The new regulations determine that the result must be notified immediately and through the Customs Electronic Communication and Notification System (SICNEA), identifying the destination numbers, the report number and its conclusion.
Another key issue is the regulation of the second analysis, with this new regulation establishing that the importer or exporter may only request a second analysis within fifteen working days of being notified. And that any disagreement with the first analysis must be expressed within that period, providing all the technical grounds to support the request.
The Technical Institute Division for the Examination of Goods (DV ITEM) will record the results contained in the expert report and issue the conclusion of the report. It will then forward all the background information to the customs jurisdiction department that corresponds to its effects.
Finally, it should be noted that the regulations provide that in those cases in which a request for analysis is received on perishable goods or goods with an operable expiration date and provided that it is appropriate at the discretion of the Technical Institute Division for the Examination of Goods (DV ITEM), the Tariff Classification Division must be involved prior to carrying out the same in order to determine the necessary and sufficient analytical requirements for the correct tariff classification.
The project was addressed under the jurisdiction of the General Subdirectorate of Customs Legal Technology and was recently launched by the Federal Administrator, providing transparency and clear rules to the technical/legal tasks, for the benefit of all international trade actors.
Aduana News is the first Argentine customs newspaper to launch its digital version. With 20 years of experience, its publications and initiatives aim to provide the most relevant knowledge on customs issues in order to contribute to safe trade in the region.
