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.

✅ Advance origin rulings are now integrated into the VUCEA system.

✅ ARCA General Resolution No. 5859/2026 establishes their operational use in customs declarations.

✅ Importers will benefit from greater predictability and legal certainty regarding the origin of their goods.

✅ The measure is part of Argentina’s ongoing process of digitalization and trade facilitation in foreign trade.

On June 5, 2026, ARCA General Resolution No. 5859/2026 was published in the Official Gazette, incorporating advance origin rulings into Argentina’s National Single Window for Foreign Trade (VUCEA). These rulings are issued pursuant to Resolution No. 26/2026 of the Secretariat of Industry, Commerce, and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises.

This measure represents a significant step toward the effective implementation of the advance rulings regime established under the Customs Code.

What are advance rulings on origin?

Advance rulings are a tool designed to provide predictability to foreign trade operators.

According to Article 3 of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Trade Facilitation Agreement, advance rulings are written decisions issued by the competent authority, at the request of an interested party and prior to the importation of goods, which determine the treatment that the operation will receive with respect to certain aspects, including tariff classification or the origin of the goods.

In matters of origin, these rulings allow the importer to obtain prior knowledge of the official criteria applicable to a specific good, thereby reducing the uncertainty that may arise at the time of documenting the transaction.

Gradual implementation of advance rulings in Argentina.

The figure of advance rulings was incorporated into the Customs Code through Emergency Decree No. 70/2023, which amended Article 226 and introduced the possibility of requesting advance rulings on tariff classification, origin, and customs valuation of goods.

Subsequently, Decree No. 41/2026 established a distinction between the competent authorities responsible for issuing such rulings.

While those related to tariff classification, valuation, and other elements necessary for the proper application of the customs regime were assigned to the General Directorate of Customs, advance rulings on origin were entrusted to the Secretariat of Industry, Trade, and Small and Medium Enterprises.

Finally, through Resolution No. 26/2026, published on April 29, 2026, the Secretariat approved the specific procedure for processing advance rulings of origin for imports.

ARCA General Resolution No. 5859/2026 now represents a further step in that process, as it establishes how such rulings must be used and reported within customs systems.

What does ARCA General Resolution No. 5859/2026 establish?

The regulation incorporates advance rulings on origin into the VUCEA ecosystem and establishes certain operational guidelines for their use.

Key aspects of the regulation

• It will not be necessary to physically submit the administrative act issued by the Secretariat of Industry, Trade, and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises.
• At the time of formalizing the customs declaration, the corresponding identifying code of the advance ruling must be declared as reference information through the documentary code. LPCOVUCE0042.
• Each authorization may be associated with only one item in the customs declaration.
• In the event of IT contingencies that prevent electronic validation, the procedure established by AFIP General Resolution No. 5384/2023 shall apply, allowing the submission of documentation in paper format to the customs service.

The resolution will enter into force on June 22, 2026..

Benefits for importers and foreign trade operators

Beyond the operational aspects, the incorporation of these rulings into the VUCEA regime represents an important step toward consolidating a tool aimed at providing greater predictability to foreign trade operations.

Main benefits

• Greater predictability in import operations.
• Greater legal certainty for operators.
• Reduction of customs contingencies.
• Better planning of costs and operations.
• Possibility of knowing in advance the official criteria on the origin of the goods.
• Facilitation of access to tariff preferences derived from trade agreements.

The determination of a good’s origin can be decisive in accessing tariff preferences, proving compliance with rules of origin, or verifying the application of certain trade measures.

Digitalization and facilitation of foreign trade.

The incorporation of these rulings into the VUCEA system reflects a sustained trend toward digitalization and interoperability among agencies involved in foreign trade.

The elimination of physical documentation and the integration of electronic procedures help simplify formalities, reduce administrative costs, and improve the efficiency of import operations.

Final reflection

Although ARCA General Resolution No. 5859/2026 does not introduce changes to the procedure for requesting advance rulings on origin, its issuance is key to the practical implementation of this tool within day-to-day customs operations.

Its incorporation into the VUCEA system strengthens a mechanism that can significantly contribute to providing greater predictability, legal certainty, and transparency in foreign trade operations.

It remains to be seen what level of use operators will assign to this tool and whether its implementation will achieve one of the main objectives pursued by this type of instrument: to provide greater predictability and certainty to import operations.

Advisory in Customs Law and Foreign Trade

The correct determination of the origin of goods, the application of tariff preferences, and compliance with customs procedures require specialized technical and legal analysis.

At MJE Comercio Exterior, we provide comprehensive advisory services to importers, exporters, and industries in the field of customs law, origin of goods, tariff classification, customs valuation, and strategic planning. in foreign trade.

If your company carries out import operations, needs to correctly determine the origin of its goods, or wishes to assess the benefits and risks associated with an advance ruling on origin, our team can provide specialized advisory services.

Learn more about our Customs Law and Foreign Trade services or contact us to discuss your case.

👉 Learn more about our Customs Law practice area..

👉 Contact us for specialized advisory services.

Do you need advisory services in foreign trade?

We analyze your case and help you minimize customs, regulatory, and commercial risks.

Related articles

If you are interested in exploring topics related to customs modernization, the digitalization of procedures, and international standards applicable to foreign trade, you may also consult:

• Electronic case files in customs procedures: their necessary implementation.
• A space to share specialized knowledge in customs law, trade defense, antidumping, and international trade, featuring practical analyses and proposals for improving business management and regulatory frameworks.
• OECD Standards, WTO Rules and Domestic Law: Tensions and Scope in Argentine Customs Valuation.

These articles address different aspects of the regulatory and operational evolution of the Argentine customs system, focusing on legal certainty, administrative efficiency, and the facilitation of international trade.

Author

Dr. Juan José Tubio

Lawyer specializing in Customs Law and Senior Customs Clearance Technician.

MJE Foreign Trade SRL.

Author: Dr. María José Etulain Sórensen
International Trade Strategist | Supply Chain Analyst | USA–Argentina Business Expansion | Trade Defense
Date: 21 de abril de 2026

A Trade Surplus with Structural Changes

El foreign trade Argentina’s merchandise trade posted a positive balance in the first quarter of 2026. However, behind this result lies a clear pattern: energy, agriculture, and mining are driving exports. exports, mientras la industria pierde peso relativo.

Empleo y transformación del mercado laboral

Al analizar el contexto general, surgen datos relevantes: en un país de 48 millones de habitantes, sólo algo más de 1 de cada 10 argentinos cuenta con empleo privado formal. A su vez, continúan registrándose pérdidas de puestos en sectores como industria, construcción y comercio.

Este escenario impacta directamente en dónde se generan las oportunidades laborales, especialmente para las nuevas generaciones.

El crecimiento de los servicios basados en el conocimiento

En este contexto, emerge con fuerza un tercer camino que ya no es una promesa, sino una realidad consolidada.

Los servicios basados en el conocimiento superaron los 285.000 empleos formales, generaron 9.000 nuevos puestos en el último año y el sector de software por sí solo emplea a más de 159.000 personas. Además, en 2025 alcanzaron exportaciones cercanas a USD 9.600 millones, posicionándose como el tercer complejo exportador del país.

Sin embargo, este fenómeno no se refleja en la balanza comercial de bienes, lo que limita la lectura tradicional del comercio exterior.

Desafíos estratégicos para la economía argentina

El desafío no radica en elegir entre sectores, sino en construir una economía más equilibrada, que permita el desarrollo de empleos formales y de mayor valor agregado, alineados con la demanda del mercado internacional.

Para Argentina, una estrategia sostenible requiere fortalecer la educación tecnológica y el desarrollo de habilidades vinculadas a la inteligencia artificial.

Conclusión: presente y futuro del comercio exterior

El comercio exterior de bienes puede definir el presente económico del país.

Pero las decisiones estratégicas que hoy se adopten respecto al uso de los recursos y la formación del capital humano serán determinantes para el futuro y el de las próximas generaciones.

¿Necesitás asesoramiento en comercio exterior o estrategia internacional?
Contactanos en MJE Comercio Exterior para acompañar la toma de decisiones en un contexto global cada vez más dinámico.

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

Dumping is one of the most relevant — and controversial — practices in the international trade. Although its technical definition is simple, its economic, political, and legal implications are profound.

In this article, we address what dumping is from a practical perspective and analyze how the international context has evolved in recent years (2020–2025).

What is dumping?

From a practical perspective, dumping consists of exporting a product at a price lower than the one applied in the domestic market of the country of origin.

Example:
A company sells a product in its domestic market for USD 10,000, but exports it for USD 6,800. This difference can have a direct impact on the industry in the importing country, which is unable to compete with that price.

For dumping to exist, two elements must be present:

• an export at a price lower than the normal value
• injury to the domestic industry of the importing country

International framework: the role of the multilateral system

The treatment of dumping is regulated within the framework of the multilateral trading system.

With the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the agreements derived from the GATT, countries established common rules for international trade, including mechanisms to address unfair trade practices.

Article VI of the GATT expressly recognizes that dumping is a condemnable practice when it causes injury to a domestic industry.

The remedy: anti-dumping duties

When dumping and injury are established, countries may impose anti-dumping duties. an anti-dumping duty.

This consists of an additional import tariff whose purpose is to neutralize the effects of the practice.

However, its application is not automatic:

• it requires a prior investigation.
• it must comply with established procedures.
• it involves the participation of companies, governments, and interested stakeholders.

Why is it important to participate in anti-dumping investigations?

Anti-dumping investigations are not merely technical exercises: they are a key tool for protecting industry, employment, and fair competition.

Active participation allows:

• defending commercial interests
• providing evidence
• influencing the final decision

🟩 Recent evolution: what has changed between 2020 and 2025?

Recent years have been marked by global transformations that directly impacted international trade:

• COVID-19 pandemic
• Geopolitical conflicts (such as the war in Ukraine)
• Trade tensions between major economies
• Global logistics disruptions
• Changes in industrial and trade policies

This context generated:

• greater state intervention
• more frequent use of trade remedies measures
• Revaluation of tools such as antidumping

Today, anti-dumping measures respond not only to multilateral rules, but also to national strategies.

Final reflection

The multilateral trading system faces significant challenges. Current tensions are forcing a rethink of its functioning and its adaptation to a new global reality.

In this context, understanding the available legal tools—such as anti-dumping measures—is essential for companies engaged in international trade.

Is your company facing an anti-dumping investigation or challenges in international trade?

At MJE Comercio Exterior, we advise companies on legal strategies and trade defense.

👉 Contact us to evaluate your case.

Dr. María José Etulain Sórensen
Attorney specialized in Customs Law, anti-dumping, and risk management
Consultant in foreign trade and internationalization
Member of the Customs and International Trade Bar Association (CITBA)
Director of MJE Global

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).

In 2025, Argentina exported a higher volume to the Chinese market than to the United States. However, a greater number of Argentine companies managed to enter the U.S. market.

This data raises an interesting question: which model of international integration is more convenient for companies?

A fact that changes the perspective

During a recent presentation at the Foreign Trade Committee of the United States Chamber of Commerce in Argentina, Dr. Federico Bernini shared a fact that invites us to rethink the country’s export strategy.

• Agribusiness exports to China: USD 8.199 billion
• Exports to the United States: USD 2.012 billion

However:

• Companies exporting to the U.S.: 1,083
• Companies exporting to China: 514

China vs United States: two different models

These figures reflect two very different foreign trade models:

• China: high volume, but concentrated
• United States: lower relative volume, but much more diversified

In practical terms, this suggests that the U.S. market is more accessible to a larger number of Argentine companies.

What does this mean for companies?

For exporting companies, this scenario opens up a concrete opportunity.

The U.S. market presents conditions that, in many cases, facilitate entry:

• greater demand diversification
• trade affinity
• favorable international context

This creates a relevant window of opportunity to rethink internationalization strategies.

Exporting to the U.S.: opportunity and challenge

However, entering the U.S. market requires operating under more stringent standards.

It is not only about price, but about:

• regulatory compliance
• certifications
• efficient processes
• timely compliance
• continuous supplier evaluation

A key aspect is understanding how the client measures its suppliers and which key performance indicators (KPIs) determine their reliability.

Conclusion

Beyond market attractiveness, the real differentiator lies in strategic preparation.

It is not only about entering, but about sustaining and growing over time.

At MJE Comercio Exterior, we support companies in the analysis and development of strategies for entering international markets, with a focus on decisions based on information and economic criteria.

This analysis is based on the article published by Dr. María José Etulain Sórensen, director of MJE Global and specialist in foreign trade.

👉 “See more articles on foreign trade”

Dr. María José Etulain Sórensen
Attorney specialized in Customs Law, anti-dumping, and risk management
Consultant in foreign trade and internationalization
Member of the Customs and International Trade Bar Association (CITBA)
Director of MJE Global