The growth of e-commerce has transformed how people buy products from abroad. However, many consumers are unaware that when they purchase goods through an international platform and receive them in Argentina via courier or door-to-door delivery, they are legally importing them.

This reality presents an increasingly relevant challenge: what happens when the purchased product turns out to be counterfeit? Can someone who made the purchase believing they were acting in good faith be held liable?

The experience of U.S. Customs offers an interesting answer and opens a debate that Argentina still needs to have.

CBP's strategy: inform before you punish

Among the responses that U.S. customs deploys against counterfeit merchandise, there is a tool that does not consist of seizing or sanctioning, but of warning.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) maintains an ongoing consumer awareness campaign through brochures, responsible purchasing guides, and a reporting portal. Its central message is clear: buying counterfeit goods is not a neutral act, and those who do so are not always innocent victims.

This strategy is particularly interesting because it raises a question that Argentina, immersed in the same expansion of international e-commerce, has not yet formulated in sufficient depth.

Suggested external links:
CBP – Fake Goods, Real Dangers: US Customs and Border Protection – Fake Goods, Real Dangers

The consumer as importer

The material produced by CBP focuses on an aspect that often goes unnoticed.

It doesn't just explain that counterfeit goods can be of low quality, dangerous to health, or even finance criminal organizations. It goes a step further and warns that importing counterfeit or pirated merchandise constitutes illegal conduct, and that individual buyers can be subject to consequences even if they did not intend to purchase a fake product.

Responsibility does not end with the foreign seller or the logistics operator. It also extends to the buyer who completes the transaction.

This approach starts from recognizing a reality inherent to modern e-commerce: millions of consumers become importers without realizing it.

Anyone who buys from a foreign platform and receives the product at their home is technically carrying out an import, with the obligations, restrictions and prohibitions that this implies, even if they perceive the operation simply as an online purchase.

The awareness campaign seeks precisely to reduce that gap between legal reality and consumer perception.

A scenario that is becoming increasingly relevant for Argentina

The usefulness of a similar strategy in Argentina becomes evident when observing the evolution of international e-commerce.

The growth of courier and door-to-door purchases has significantly increased the number of consumers who buy products directly from abroad, without the intervention of specialized operators.

The simplification of these regimes has facilitated access to international markets, but it has also multiplied the number of people acting as occasional importers without knowing the applicable legal framework.

Many consumers are unaware that importing counterfeit goods is prohibited and that the consequences can go far beyond simply losing the package.

To learn more about this risk, you can consult our article “Trademark fraud: the silent risk of the digital importer.

The remaining challenge: communicating

The problem lies not in the absence of recipients, but in the lack of information tools.

Traditionally, state communication on foreign trade has been geared towards the professional operator: customs brokers, regular importers, exporters and companies.

The end consumer has remained virtually outside the news radar, despite becoming an increasingly relevant player in international trade.

Today it is necessary to explain to the e-commerce buyer that, from a legal point of view, they are also carrying out an import and what the prohibitions are applicable to the products they acquire.

Implementing an awareness policy would not necessarily require modifying existing legislation.

The rules governing the entry of counterfeit goods and the responsibilities associated with import operations form part of the framework of Customs Law.

What is needed is to translate that regulatory framework into clear language and make it accessible to the consumer through the same channels where they make their purchases.

Inform without generating fear

Any awareness campaign should maintain a proper balance.

The goal cannot be to intimidate the good-faith consumer who was deceived by a seller, but to provide them with tools to reduce risks before finalizing the purchase.

In this respect, the American model is particularly interesting because it combines legal warnings with practical recommendations, such as checking the seller's reputation, being wary of unusually low prices, buying through authorized channels, and reporting potential counterfeits.

Informing without alarming should be the focus of any Argentine adaptation.

An opportunity to improve the model

A local adaptation could even surpass the American model in one important aspect.

Currently, CBP channels are primarily focused on reporting counterfeits once they are detected.

However, nothing would prevent Argentina from incorporating a preventive consultation channel where the consumer could raise doubts before making a purchase.

A mechanism of this kind would strengthen the preventive approach and offer a concrete tool for those who wish to act in good faith and comply with current regulations.

A simple tool with high impact

Among the various measures used by U.S. Customs to combat counterfeiting, the consumer awareness campaign is probably one of the most easily transferable to the Argentine reality.

It does not require creating new bodies or modifying the structure of customs control.

It simply requires assuming that the e-commerce consumer is also an importer and needs to know the rules that govern that status.

In a context where international purchases continue to grow, educating the consumer ceases to be a merely communicational policy and becomes an essential preventive tool.

Counterfeiters will continue to try to enter the market through the same channels. The difference will be that, on the other side, there will be an informed consumer who understands the legal implications of what they choose to buy.

Do you need advice on foreign trade?

At MJE Foreign Trade We advise companies on Customs Law, International Trade, Trade Remedies, Intellectual Property related to foreign trade and regulatory compliance, providing preventative solutions to minimize risks in international operations.

If your company needs specialized assistance, you can contact our team to analyze your operation and receive specific advice.

Author

Dr. Andrea Zavatto
Attorney – Specialist in Customs Law, Foreign Exchange Law, and Legal Metrology
Director – MJE Comercio Exterior SRL
Consulting Partner – MJE Global (USA)
General Directorate – Dumping Experts

Frequently Asked Questions

Some laws age without losing their relevance; on the contrary, reality catches up with them, and they suddenly acquire a weight that their original wording did not anticipate. This is what is happening today with the prohibition on importing or exporting counterfeit or pirated goods. Article 46 of Law 26,458 and its operational regulations through General Resolution No. 4571/2019 constitute a system that has been in place for years, but the explosion of e-commerce, the speed of communications, and the emergence of artificial intelligence have suddenly made it central for thousands of operators who were previously unaware of their vulnerability.

How the ban works

The crux of the matter is simple to state. The law prohibits the import or export of goods, under any temporary or definitive customs procedure, when a simple inspection reveals that the goods bear a counterfeit trademark or are pirated copies. When the situation is not obvious, the service customs The issuance of the order may be suspended for up to seven business days to consult with the rights holder and give them the opportunity to request any precautionary measures they deem appropriate from the judge. General Resolution No. 4571/2019 establishes the procedure: it implements the so-called Alert System, orders the blocking of the process for one business day for the affected shipments, provides for notification to the registered trademark owner, and establishes that, if the existence or presumption of trademark fraud is confirmed, the corresponding legal and administrative proceedings will be initiated.

Why e-commerce changed the landscape

What has changed is not the law itself, but the universe of individuals now within its reach. For years, trademark counterfeiting was a problem confined to shipping containers and professional importers who knew their territory. E-commerce has completely altered that landscape. The entrepreneur who resells through a marketplace, the one who operates under dropshipping models and never physically touches the merchandise they sell, the small importer who buys from a catalog from a barely known foreign supplier—all of them now participate in long, opaque, and fast-paced supply chains, where the origin and authenticity of a product can be lost among a handful of intermediaries. Artificial intelligence, which now allows for the reproduction of logos, packaging, and even certificates with unsettling accuracy, adds another layer of risk: distinguishing the genuine from the counterfeit is increasingly difficult, even for those acting in good faith.

A risk that rarely travels alone

It is important to be clear about the seriousness of what is at stake, because it is often underestimated. Trademark fraud rarely occurs in isolation. In practice, merchandise bearing a counterfeit trademark may arrive under a declaration that does not match what customs ultimately finds, and this discrepancy opens the door to the infraction of inaccurate declaration under Article 954 of the Customs Code. It is also worth noting that, depending on the circumstances, the conduct may go beyond the level of an infraction and lead to criminal charges, either for the crime of smuggling as defined in the Customs Code, or for the criminal offenses contemplated in the Trademark Law. This adds a dimension to the economic risk that no operator should overlook.

The economic cost of trademark fraud

The penalty can be substantial. Article 954, subsection b), punishes any declaration that could have resulted in a violation of an import or export prohibition with a fine of one to five times the customs value of the infringing merchandise. The calculation basis is not the difference in taxes or a marginal adjustment, but rather the full value of the merchandise, which can be multiplied fivefold. A poorly managed trademark fraud can thus be as costly as the most serious inaccurate declaration, with the added burden that the merchandise, being prohibited imports, is irretrievable and is destined for destruction or the disposal route stipulated by law. Added to this cost are reputational damage, operational paralysis while the proceedings are underway, and the initiation of an investigation that can drag on for years.

Prevention as the best defense

All of this suggests that the best defense lies not in the summary of the case, but much earlier, in the prevention. Today's e-commerce importers should incorporate trademark compliance into their routine as naturally as verifying tariff classifications or values. Knowing the supplier and documenting that relationship, demanding and retaining authorizations, licenses, or contracts that prove the right to market a brand, verifying that the declared merchandise matches what is actually received, and being wary of prices that seem too good to be true are fundamental practices that now distinguish the diligent importer from the one who, unwittingly, becomes exposed to severe penalties. The speed of digital business does not eliminate these precautions; on the contrary, it makes them essential, because the same environment that allows buying abroad with a click is the same one that allows a counterfeit product to reach its destination undetected by anyone in the supply chain.

The system, in short, is old, but the problem it addresses today is new in scale and speed. Understanding that an infraction conceived for another era can hit contemporary e-commerce with full force is the first step to avoiding it. The regulation makes no distinction between large importers and entrepreneurs operating from home: the prohibition applies equally to both, and the fine is calculated in the same way. Prevention costs infinitely less than remediation.

Do you need advice on customs law or risk prevention in international trade operations?

The team of MJE Foreign Trade provides assistance to importing and exporting companies in matters of customs compliance, administrative defense and strategic planning. to minimize legal contingencies.

Contact the team →

Author

Dr. Andrea Zavatto
Attorney – Specialist in Customs Law, Foreign Exchange Law, and Legal Metrology
Director – MJE Comercio Exterior SRL
Consulting Partner – MJE Global (USA)
General Directorate – Dumping Experts

Resolution No. 218/2026, issued by the Secretariat of Industry, Commerce and Small and Medium Enterprises on July 15, 2026, declared it appropriate to open an investigation for alleged dumping on exports to the Argentine Republic of industrial steel wind turbine towers originating from the People's Republic of China.

The National Foreign Trade Commission preliminarily concluded that there is sufficient evidence to consider the following proven:

• The existence of dumping.
• The threat of significant damage to the domestic production sector.
• The causal relationship between the two.
• A weighted average dumping margin of 46.39 %.

So far, it might seem like a procedure antidumping usual. However, an aspect incorporated by the Commission introduces a new question: it announced that during the investigation it will deepen the analysis on the impact of other regimes, including the Incentive Regime for Large Investments (RIGI).

Two regimes with different objectives

The RIGI, created by Law 27,742 and regulated by Decree 749/24, aims to promote large investment projects through tax, customs and exchange stability for thirty years, in addition to granting important incentives to sectors considered strategic for the development of the country.

On the other hand, the antidumping regime—incorporated into the Argentine legal system by Law 24,425 and currently regulated by Decree 33/25—operates according to a different logic. Its objective is to correct unfair trade practices when three requirements are met simultaneously:

1. The existence of dumping.
2. The existence of significant damage or threat of damage to the domestic industry.
3. The causal relationship between the two.

Both regimes pursue legitimate objectives, but they serve clearly different purposes.

The RIGI's silence regarding antidumping measures

Although Title VII of Law 27.742 extensively regulates the benefits applicable to the RIGI, it does not contain a specific provision on antidumping duties.

The rule does not expressly state that these rights are exempt, but neither does it stipulate that they must be applied without exception to projects adhering to the regime.

There are indirect references that suggest the legislator considered the issue, although none of them definitively resolves the interpretative conflict.

Consequently, both those who argue that customs stability could prevent the application of antidumping measures and those who understand that trade defense remains completely unrelated to the regime find reasonable legal arguments.

The public interest as a meeting point

However, the real debate should probably not focus on the scope of RIGI.

Decree 33/25 expressly incorporated the analysis of public interest within the antidumping procedure.

The National Foreign Trade Commission must consider the circumstances of general foreign trade policy and the public interest when issuing its final recommendation.

Furthermore, the regime refers to Article 9.1 of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Antidumping Agreement, which recognizes that, even if dumping, injury and a causal relationship are verified, the decision to apply or not an antidumping duty remains a power of the competent authority.

From this perspective, the RIGI would not enter the file as a rule that automatically excludes the application of antidumping measures, but as a circumstance that could be weighed within the analysis of the public interest.

The case of the wind turbines

The tension is particularly evident in this investigation.

Wind turbines are strategic assets for the development of electricity generation projects, precisely one of the sectors included within the RIGI.

At the same time, these same products are manufactured by the domestic industry, which seeks to protect itself against a possible dumping practice.

Thus, two public policies converge, pursuing equally relevant objectives:

• Promote large-scale investments.
• Protecting domestic industry against unfair trade practices.

Current regulations do not establish a rule that determines which of the two should prevail, leaving that assessment in the hands of the administrative authority.

A question that transcends this case

The issue goes far beyond the wind turbine tower market.

The real question is whether the existence of an investment promotion regime can, as a matter of public interest, influence the decision not to apply an antidumping measure even when all the legal requirements for its imposition are met.

Decree 33/25 allows for this assessment. What it does not yet define is the extent to which this assessment can be applied.

Conclusion

The investigation has only just begun. Still pending are the report of essential facts, the parties' arguments, and the final recommendation from the National Foreign Trade Commission, which must include an analysis of the public interest as stipulated by current regulations.

It will then be possible to determine whether the reference made to the RIGI constitutes simply a formal observation or the beginning of a new line of interpretation in matters of trade defense.

Dr. Andrea Zavatto

Lawyer – Specialist in Customs Law, Foreign Exchange and Legal Metrology Director – MJE Comercio Exterior SRL Consulting Partner – MJE Global (USA) General Management – Dumping Experts

The trade policy of the United States has added a new chapter that confirms the growing importance of labor standards as a condition for access to its market The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) announced that, following the conclusion of investigations initiated into sixty economies, including Argentina, it determined that the failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor constitutes an unreasonable practice and a restriction on U.S. trade.

On that basis, it proposed the imposition of additional tariffs ranging from 10% to 12.5% on imports originating from the countries covered by the measure. The proposal will remain open for written comments until July 6 and includes a public hearing scheduled for July 7.

Section 301 as the Legal Basis for the Measure

The legal instrument used is Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which authorizes the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to respond to practices by trading partners that it considers unreasonable or discriminatory and that burden or restrict U.S. commerce.

Its use is no coincidence. After the U.S. Supreme Court struck down much of the global tariffs imposed under emergency powers in February, Section 301 has emerged as an alternative mechanism for rebuilding that trade policy on a stronger legal foundation.

The underlying rationale remains the U.S. prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor, a restriction that applies not only to the final product but also to intermediate inputs used throughout the supply chain. Until now, this control had been enforced primarily through customs mechanisms. The new development is that the same standard is now beginning to be reflected as an explicit tariff variable as well.

What would be the implications for Argentina?

In the case of Argentina, the most relevant aspect is that the proposed tariff would be 10%, rather than 12.5%.

The USTR reserved the lower tariff rate for those economies that have a prohibition on the import of goods produced with forced labor, that have undertaken commitments to implement such a prohibition through agreements with the United States, or that maintain partial regimes producing a similar effect.

Although the report concludes that Argentina does not currently impose nor effectively enforce a prohibition of this nature, it explicitly acknowledges the commitments undertaken under the Reciprocal Trade and Investment Agreement signed with the United States in February of this year, which has not yet entered into force.

It is precisely this commitment that would allow Argentina to be placed within the category subject to the 10% tariff.

So far, the report does not specify which products would be covered or what the concrete implementation mechanism of the measure would be.

The forced labor standard required by the United States.

The USTR report defines the prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor as an unequivocal legal ban, distinguishing it from transparency regimes, due diligence obligations, or voluntary disclosure systems.

Likewise, it maintains that the United States is currently the only economy that effectively applies and enforces a comprehensive prohibition of this nature.

For this reason, the recognition of the commitments undertaken by Argentina acts as a mitigating factor, although their effective implementation remains pending.

Labor traceability as a new factor of competitiveness

The relevance of this proposal goes beyond the tariff issue.

Labor traceability and verifiable commitments regarding supply chains are no longer solely a reputational matter; they are becoming a technical variable that can directly affect access to the U.S. market and export costs.

The proposal also contemplates a specific mechanism for certain textile and apparel products, which would allow the entry of certain volumes at a reduced rate under Section 301.

What should exporting companies review?

For Argentine companies with operations linked to the United States—whether as direct exporters, suppliers of inputs, or participants in regional value chains with a final destination in that market—the scenario takes on a concrete dimension.

In this context, it is advisable to review:

• The origin of critical inputs used in production.
• The traceability of direct and indirect suppliers.
• Internal labor due diligence policies.
• Supply chain audit and control mechanisms.
• Available documentation to substantiate reasonable compliance standards.

Next steps

The USTR-established timeline provides for:

• Submission of requests to participate in the hearing: until June 22.
• Submission of written comments: until July 6.
• Public hearing: July 7.

This period will allow for a clearer understanding of the final scope of the measure and an assessment of the potential impacts on the companies involved.

Conclusion

Controls related to forced labor initially operated as a non-tariff barrier aimed at regulating the entry of goods into the U.S. market. However, the USTR proposal evidences a significant shift: these standards are now also being reflected as an explicit tariff variable.

In this context, the management of labor traceability and the monitoring of supply chains are consolidated as essential tools for the management of commercial and regulatory risk in relations with the United States.

Dr. Andrea Zavatto

Attorney – Specialist in Customs Law, Foreign Exchange Law, and Legal Metrology
Director – MJE Comercio Exterior SRL
Consulting Partner – MJE Global (USA)
General Directorate – Dumping Experts

Article originally published in Financial Sector.

The recent Communication A 8417 issued by the Central Bank introduces a series of adjustments to the oreign exchange and cross-border transactions framework that, at first glance, could be interpreted as another step toward the easing of currency controls. However, a closer analysis reveals a scenario that is more nuanced than expansive.

In relation to individuals, the regulation introduces significant measures. On the one hand, it extends the exemption from the requirement to repatriate and settle foreign currency proceeds from exports of services to all service exports to all service categories. On the other hand, it establishes a similar framework for certain exports of goods. These changes are consistent with a gradual process of expanding foreign currency availability for individual exporters.

However, this opening coexists with mechanisms that continue to condition access to the market. In particular, the requirement set out in point 7.2 of the Communication —the obligation to submit a sworn declaration undertaking not to carry out transactions involving securities with settlement in foreign currency during the 90 days following the transfer of foreign currency abroad from local foreign-currency accounts to one’s own accounts abroad— clearly reflects this logic. Transactions are permitted, but at the same time an instrument is maintained to prevent their use as an indirect channel for financial dollarization. In other words, the regulation expands the operational scope, while preserving the control architecture that characterizes the current regime.

For legal entities, the scope of the amendments is more limited. Improvements are introduced in relation to the extension of deadlines for the inflow and settlement of foreign exchange proceeds in certain export scenarios, the possibility of early repayment of securities nearing maturity, and some conditional relaxations regarding the repayment of financial indebtedness with related parties. However, these measures function more as technical adjustments within the existing framework than as a substantial modification of the foreign exchange regime applicable to the corporate sector.

From this perspective, Communication A 8417 appears to be part of a strategy of managed liberalization: certain operational margins are expanded, particularly for individuals, while regulatory instruments are maintained that continue to define the effective scope of that opening. The question, therefore, is not whether there has been liberalization, but what kind. And the likely answer is that it is a partial, segmented liberalization, still far from implying a structural change in the current foreign exchange regime.

Dr. Andrea Zavatto

Attorney – Specialist in Customs Law, Foreign Exchange Law, and Legal Metrology
Director – MJE Comercio Exterior SRL
Consulting Partner – MJE Global (USA)
General Directorate – Dumping Experts

By Andrea Zavatto – Specialist in Foreign Trade and Internationalization Strategy

In March 2026, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) announced the start of investigations into 60 economies—including Argentina—to assess whether they have effective mechanisms to prevent the entry of products made with forced labor into their markets.

While the measure does not target specific sectors or involve immediate sanctions, it sends a clear signal: The United States is raising the standard for access to its market, increasingly incorporating requirements related to how goods are produced, and not just what is exported.

This approach isn't entirely new, but it is intensifying. US regulations allow for blocking the entry of products when there are suspicions of forced labor anywhere in the supply chain.

This includes not only the final product, but also inputs, components, or intermediate processes, which significantly expands the scope of the controls.

In practice, this means that a business transaction can be affected even when the problem is not with the direct exporting company, but with a supplier within its supply chain.

Herein lies a key change for businesses: the supply chain traceability It ceases to be a reputational aspect and becomes an operational condition for accessing the US market.

This new scenario demands greater visibility into the origin of inputs and the conditions under which they were produced.

This evolution aligns with a broader agenda that is already impacting international trade: ESG (environmental, social and governance) criteria and the growing demands for transparency in supply chains.

In this context, labor compliance is progressively being integrated as a central element within the strategies of foreign trade.

For Argentine companies that export to the United States —or that participate indirectly in value chains destined for that market— this scenario poses concrete challenges:

• Identify the origin of critical inputs
• Evaluate suppliers, even beyond the first level
• Have documentation that supports the production conditions
• Incorporate basic due diligence criteria into your processes

It's not necessarily about immediate major transformations, but rather about starting to organize information that until now was not a priority.

Another relevant point is that this type of demand functions, in practice, as a non-tariff barrier.

It is no longer enough to comply with tariffs, technical standards, or sanitary requirements: The way in which something is produced is becoming as important as the product itself..

Argentina's inclusion in this review should be interpreted as an early warning sign. It doesn't imply a current problem, but it does foreshadow the direction in which international trade is heading.

In this scenario, companies that anticipate changes—even gradually—will be better positioned not only to reduce operational risks, but also to sustain and strengthen their business relationships in increasingly demanding markets such as the United States.

At MJE Comercio Exterior, we advise companies on adapting their operations to international compliance standards, including supply chain traceability and preventing regulatory risks in exports to the United States.

📩 Contact us to assess the impact on your operations and anticipate new demands of international trade.

Andrea Zavatto She is an Argentine lawyer specializing in foreign trade and internationalization strategy. She advises companies in Argentina and the United States. She is a member of the Argentine Association of Fiscal Studies, the Argentine Institute of Customs Studies, and the Customs and International Trade Bar Association (CITBA).

Comparative analysis based on the recent ruling of the United States Supreme Court and its parallel with Argentine doctrine on tax legality.

Author: Dr. Andrea Zavatto
Date: February 22, 2026
Original publication: Mercojuris
Área: International Trade · Customs Law · Taxation

The ruling of the United States Supreme Court and the limits on emergency tariffs

On February 20, 2026, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump que la International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Twelve years earlier, the Argentine Supreme Court, in Camaronera Patagónica S.A., had reaffirmed that export duties are taxes whose creation corresponds to Congress.

Although originating in different contexts, both precedents converge on the same institutional warning: when the Executive Branch attempts to base tax authority on broad or generic enabling provisions, the courts raise the same essential question: Where is the Act of Congress that precisely authorizes the tax?

Tariffs, economic emergency, and the principle of statutory reservation in the United States

The U.S. case arises in a context of massive tariffs imposed under an emergency declaration and defended solely on the basis of the IEEPA. The Court held that the power of “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” pertenece al Congreso y que el verbo “regulate” cannot be interpreted as synonymous with. “tax”.

Likewise, it required clear legislative authorization for what it characterized as a “major decision” of economic policy. Beyond internal methodological differences, the institutional message was clear: economic emergency, by itself, does not transform a regulatory power into a taxing power.

Camaronera Patagónica” and the principle of tax legality in Argentina

The Argentine controversy, although earlier and of a different nature, reveals a similar tension. In Camaronera Patagónica S.A., the Supreme Court held that export duties set by ministerial resolution had an unequivocal tax nature and violated the principle of legality.

Even acknowledging the variability of the foreign tradethe Court insisted that Congress must clearly define the essential elements of the tax, and may—at most—authorize the Executive Branch to adjust rates within parameters previously established by law.

Constitutional convergences and limits on the taxing power

A comparative reading reveals a significant conceptual convergence. In both systems, taxes are neither presumed nor inferred from broad clauses. In the United States, the Court is skeptical that Congress has “hidden” tariff authority within an emergency statute.

In Argentina, even in the context of the dynamics of foreign trade, a complete legislative framework is required: taxable event, affected taxpayers, and applicable rate (or scale). Doctrinal differences do not alter the common core: the taxing power remains a stress test for the separation of powers..

Practical implications for international trade

This parallel is not coincidental. The Argentine Constitution of 1853 was designed under the influence of the United States model. The 1994 constitutional reform strengthened formal safeguards by prohibiting legislative delegation except in limited circumstances and by restricting necessity and urgency decrees in tax matters.

In the United States, the ruling recalibrates the IEEPA as a tool for sanctions and economic control, but not as a mechanism to redesign general tariff policy without legislative intervention. In Argentina, Camaronera Patagónica it remains fully valid as a warning of legislative technique: invoking an emergency does not replace the principle of statutory reservation when taxes are at stake.

In short, both precedents remind us that economic policy may require flexibility, but the power to tax demands explicit democratic legitimacy. When taxation “returns” to Congress, it is not a matter of formalism, but of the basic constitutional logic of representative systems.

Dr. Andrea Zavatto

Attorney – Specialist in Customs Law, Foreign Exchange Law, and Legal Metrology
Director – MJE Comercio Exterior SRL
Consulting Partner – MJE Global (USA)
General Directorate – Dumping Experts

Article originally published in Mercojuris. Reproduced with the author’s authorization.

The dissolution of the Argentine Calibration and Measurement Service (SAC) represents a significant change within the Argentine metrological system, with direct implications for companies operating in foreign trade.

In this context, the Dr. Andrea Zavatto, Attorney specialized in Customs Law, Foreign Exchange Law, and Legal Metrology, Director of MJE Foreign Trade SRL, Consulting Partner in MJE Global (USA) and head of the General Directorate of Dumping Experts, analyzes the legal scope and immediate operational challenges posed by this institutional reconfiguration.

The article provides a technical and strategic perspective on the regulatory impact of the new metrological framework, especially in relation to the… regulatory compliance, the traceability of measurements and the adaptation of operators to the current changes.

This content is based on an analysis originally published in Mercojuris, and is presented here in an institutional format for informational purposes.

👉 Read the full article by Dr. Andrea Zavatto in Mercojuris.

Dr. Andrea Zavatto

Attorney – Specialist in Customs Law, Foreign Exchange Law, and Legal Metrology
Director – MJE Comercio Exterior SRL
Consulting Partner – MJE Global (USA)
General Directorate – Dumping Experts

By Dr. Andrea Zavatto

Guarantees and international standards

The principle of due process constitutes a fundamental guarantee recognized by the National Constitution and international human rights treaties with constitutional hierarchy. In the sphere of customs law, its application acquires particular relevance due to the intensity of State control and the legal and economic consequences that may arise from administrative proceedings.

The analysis of due process in Argentine customs procedures requires consideration of both the domestic legal framework and the international standards applicable international standards, in particular those derived from international human rights law and the multilateral trading system.

Due process as a constitutional guarantee

The National Constitution provides that no one may be deprived of their rights without prior legal proceedings grounded in law. This principle, which extends to the administrative sphere, implies that any action by the customs authority must respect a set of minimum guarantees intended to ensure the legality, reasonableness, and legitimacy of the procedure.

In this regard, due process operates as a limit on the exercise of administrative powers and as an essential guarantee against decisions that may affect the subjective rights or legitimate interests of regulated parties.

Application of due process in customs proceedings

Customs proceedings present particular features that justify a specific analysis of the scope of due process. Among them, the following stand out:

• The breadth of the supervisory and control powers of the customs authority,
• The technical complexity of foreign trade operations,
• And the possible imposition of administrative and economic sanctions.

These characteristics reinforce the need to ensure a procedure that fully respects constitutional and legal guarantees.

Main procedural guarantees involved

Among the guarantees that make up due process in customs matters, the following may be mentioned:

Right to defense

The regulated party must have an effective opportunity to be informed of the charges brought, access the case file, offer and produce evidence, and submit such defenses as it deems appropriate before a final decision is adopted.

Principle of legality

The actions of the administration must be based on existing laws and applied in a reasonable and proportional manner, avoiding arbitrary or expansive interpretations that may prejudice the regulated party.

Reasoned grounds for administrative acts

Acts issued within the framework of customs proceedings must be duly reasoned, expressly setting out the facts, the evidence, and the legal provisions on which they are based.

Reasonable time frame

The procedure must be conducted within a reasonable timeframe, avoiding undue delays that may affect legal certainty and the normal conduct of commercial activities.

Applicable international standards

The analysis of due process in customs matters cannot disregard the international standards. The analysis of due process in customs matters cannot disregard international standards. Human rights treaties, as well as the principles recognized within the framework of the World Trade Organization, establish minimum parameters that States must respect in their administrative procedures.

These standards reinforce the requirement for transparent, predictable procedures that respect the right of defense, and constitute a relevant guide for the interpretation and application of domestic customs law.

Final considerations

Respect for due process in customs procedures constitutes a central element for ensuring the legality of administrative actions and the protection of the rights of foreign trade operators.

Its proper application helps to strengthen legal certainty, system predictability, and confidence in the institutions responsible for customs control, in line with the commitments undertaken by the Argentine Republic at the constitutional and international levels.

📄 Academic paper

Web version of the paper
“Due process in Argentine customs procedures: guarantees and international standards”

👉 Download the complete paper in PDF

Related advisory services
For more information on legal advisory services in Customs Law and Foreign Trade, and on the defense of rights and guarantees in proceedings before the customs authority, you may consult our specialized practice area.

Dr. Andrea Zavatto

Attorney – Specialist in Customs Law, Foreign Exchange Law, and Legal Metrology