The ruling that overturned a charge of inaccurate statements demonstrates how the law can prevail over the mechanical logic of the Administration.
1. Introduction
This paper analyses the ruling issued by the National Tax Court in the case Serenity Argentina SA c/ DGA. (File No. 24.055-A and accompanying), which discussed the nature of the violation provided for in Article 954, paragraphs a) and c), of the Customs Code (CA). The case constitutes a relevant precedent in that it clearly delineates the burden of proof on the Administration in the context of sanctioning proceedings and reaffirms the scope of the principle of legality in violation matters.
2. The imputation: inaccurate statement and presumption of harm
The case arose from the importation of cellulose by Serenity Argentina SA, documented as “second-quality” merchandise under product code 700173. The Campana Customs Office considered that said merchandise actually corresponded to “first-quality” merchandise and, on that basis, charged the firm and its forwarder with an infraction for inaccurate declaration in accordance with article 954, section 1, subsections a) and c), of the Customs Code. A fine was imposed and payment of additional taxes was required.
However, as Licht (2025) points out, "an inaccurate statement is not presumed, nor can it be based on isolated comparisons or ambiguous references. The offense requires defined conduct, a verifiable result, and a causal relationship between both elements."
3. Typical elements and principle of legality
The rule in question provides that:
“Anyone who […] makes a declaration to the customs service that differs from the result of the verification and which, if it goes unnoticed, produces or could have produced: a) a fiscal loss […] or c) the income or expenditure […] of an amount paid or payable other than that which actually corresponds, will be sanctioned with a fine” (CA, art. 954, incs. a and c).
According to the Supreme Court, this type of offense is not satisfied by the mere existence of a difference between what was declared and what was verified: it must have the potential to cause actual fiscal damage or alter the determination of the customs value. As the Supreme Court stated in the precedent Ferry Lines Argentinas SA. (CSJN, 17/06/1986), "an inaccurate formulation must entail the concrete possibility of harm; otherwise, the punitive meaning of the rule is distorted."
This criterion has been included in the jurisprudence of the Tax Court, which requires a strict interpretation of the elements of the type based on the principle of legality (TFN, “Papelera Tucumán SA c/ DGA”, File No. 24.383-A, 15/04/2009).
4. The burden of proof and the weakness of the background information provided
In the case analyzed, the customs service failed to prove the existence of a substantial difference in the quality of the product or the production of any damage. The price declared by the firm was even higher than that of a "comparable" transaction offered by Customs. The comparison with transactions of a different scale and context was methodologically invalid, as the court noted.
Furthermore, expert and informative evidence—including the report from INTI Celulosa y Papel (Cellulose and Paper Institute) and the response from the exporter itself, Georgia-Pacific Corporation—confirmed that product code 700173 was used for both first- and second-quality merchandise. The Pulp Manufacturers Association, for its part, reported that it had no documentation to support qualitative or price differences.
5. The Tax Court's decision and its grounds
Dr. Miguel Licht's vote concluded that "no damage has been proven, nor has distorted income or expenditure been verified in economic or fiscal terms" (TFN, Serenity, 2025). Therefore, the application of the offense classification is inadmissible. Dr. Sarquis partially agreed, recognizing a formal difference in the declaration, but highlighting the lack of legally relevant effects. Dr. Segura supported this latter position.
The judgment consequently revoked the administrative resolution and ordered that the costs be imposed by its order.
6. Final Thoughts
The ruling of the National Tax Court in > It is paradigmatic in its reaffirmation of the guiding principles of the sanctioning procedure: legality, burden of proof, proportionality, and due process. It rejects the logic of automatic sanctions and reaffirms that an infringement cannot be inferred by analogy or presumed based on merely indicative elements. This precedent constitutes an institutional warning against the misuse of punitive authority in customs matters.
As Martínez (2012) warns, “when the requirement for proof in the infringement procedure is weakened, administrative law slides towards an inquisitorial model, incompatible with the guarantees of the rule of law” (p. 148).
Download in PDF format the ruling issued by the National Tax Court in the case Serenity Argentina SA v. General Directorate of Customs, File No. 24.055-A and accumulated.
- Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (1986). Ferry Líneas Argentinas SA s/ appeal. Judgment of June 17, 1986.
- Licht, M. (2025). Vote in “Serenity Argentina SA v. DGA”, Case No. 24.055-A. National Tax Court.
- Martínez, A. (2012). Customs Law: Procedure, Infractions, and Jurisprudence. Buenos Aires: Hammurabi.
- National Tax Court (2009). Papelera Tucumán SA v. DGA, Case No. 24.383-A. Judgment of April 15, 2009.
The author is a lawyer, graduated from the University of Belgrano in 1998. He has practiced the profession uninterruptedly since then and, for the past two years, has worked in the Legal Department of the National Tax Court.
