Customs law in the face of the transformations of our time: why do we want to modernize customs?

Reflections on the modernization of customs from the International Workshop of the International Academy of Customs Law, Cancun, October 8, 2026

On October 8th, Cancun was the setting for one of those experiences that remind us of the true meaning of academic life: meeting to share knowledge, contrast perspectives and, above all, formulate new questions in the face of new technologies and realities.

In that spirit, the closing remarks of Professor Dr. Andrés Rohde Ponce, President of the International Academy of Customs Law (ICLA), served as an invitation to remember what the Academy is and who its members are: individuals who, with a selfless dedication to the study and dissemination of our field, find in the exchange of knowledge an expression of their commitment to the development of the customs law.

The International Workshop "Electronic Customs Systems in the Face of Foreign Trade Audits: Their Proof in Legal Proceedings," organized by ICLA, brought together professionals from across the continent to share knowledge and reflections on the technological transformation of customs administrations and the challenges posed by the use of digital information in international trade.

The presentations on the modernization of Mexican customs, the use of data from foreign trade operations, and the possibilities of artificial intelligence offered an overview of the tools that are beginning to transform our discipline.

However, beyond the technologies presented, the meeting invited consideration of a prior and possibly more important question: why do we want to modernize customs?

Technology does not define the ends

Among the projects presented were initiatives for systems integration, process automation, predictive risk analysis, strengthening operational traceability, and developing agentic intelligence for merchandise classification. Digital transformation promises to improve the ability of government agencies to process information, identify inconsistencies, and make informed decisions.

These are significant advances. But technology, however sophisticated, does not in itself determine what the objectives of a public institution should be.

An administration can use intelligent systems to increase its oversight capacity, expedite the dispatch of goods, facilitate voluntary compliance, or improve the quality of its services. These possibilities are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but their combination and priorities depend on institutional, legal, and political decisions, not on technological ones.

One of the most significant ideas from the presentations was precisely that customs modernization depends not only on incorporating new technologies, but also on collaboration between the authorities and the members of the logistics chain.

This statement allows us to broaden the analysis: modernization is not simply about replacing manual procedures with electronic processes. It also requires reviewing whether the procedures we are automating still meet the needs of contemporary commerce.

It would be of little use to apply artificial intelligence to a structure designed for commercial operations of another era if we are not willing to reconsider its processes.

Raise more or make it easier?

Customs administrations perform essential functions of control, revenue collection, security, and trade facilitation. None of these can be ignored. However, the order of priorities warrants consideration.

Customs duties represent a relatively small proportion of total tax revenue in Latin American economies, although their importance varies among countries. Based on available data, we can estimate this share at around 3.1% of total tax revenue.^[1]. It is necessary to distinguish these rights from other taxes collected on imports, such as VAT, which retains its nature as an internal tax even when collected at the border.

In that sense, we should not lose sight of an elementary issue: economic activity is what generates the wealth on which the State collects taxes (VAT and income tax).

In matters of foreign trade, systematically placing the collection of customs duties ahead of the facilitation of international trade can be like putting the cart before the horse.

Delays, compliance costs, uncertainty, and unnecessary administrative hurdles affect the competitiveness of businesses and, especially, the ability of small operators to participate in international trade.

Revenue collection is a legitimate and indispensable function of the State. However, it is not, in itself, a sufficient measure of the success of public administration when we talk about foreign trade.

An efficient customs office must collect what is legally due, control relevant risks, and allow legitimate operations to proceed with predictability, legal certainty, and reasonable costs.

Its performance should also be evaluated by what it makes possible outside its own offices: production, investment, supply, employment and economic development.

Facilitating trade also requires protecting it

Trade facilitation should also not be interpreted as an opening that is indifferent to its economic consequences.

When certain imports cause injury to a domestic industry, it is appropriate to examine in a timely manner whether there are unfair trade practices that justify the application of the trade defense instruments provided for by the legal system.

In antidumping matters, this requires demonstrating the corresponding legal prerequisites: the existence of dumping, injury, and a causal link, with full respect for procedural guarantees. Not every competitive disadvantage faced by domestic industry constitutes a dumping situation, nor does every harmful import justify a trade defense measure.

But when those requirements are met, the speed and timeliness of the response are crucial. A measure implemented after productive activity has ceased may have lost much of its effectiveness.

Nor should we forget that a national industry generates much more than production. It generates employment, family income, consumption, purchases from suppliers, and tax revenue throughout the entire economic activity.

Protection against unfair practices and the facilitation of legitimate trade are not contradictory objectives. Both aim to ensure that international trade takes place within a legal framework that allows for fair competition.

From this perspective, the effectiveness of institutions linked to foreign trade cannot be measured solely by border revenues. It must also consider the preservation of the conditions that allow for wealth creation and the sustainability of economic activity.

Artificial intelligence: to track down errors or to facilitate compliance?

One of the workshop presentations proposed a path that takes us from business operations to the data they generate; then from that data to information; and finally from information to useful knowledge for decision-making.

The idea is powerful: foreign trade operations already generate enormous amounts of information. The challenge lies in connecting it, interpreting it, and transforming it into knowledge that a human can use to make decisions.

Artificial intelligence opens up extraordinary possibilities for analyzing documentation, identifying patterns, detecting risks, and improving the consistency of controls.

But it also raises a question that I consider fundamental: are we going to use that capacity primarily to find more violations or to reduce the number of violations?

The difference is not insignificant.

A tool that identifies inconsistencies can be used to initiate audits, but also to proactively warn operators, explain obligations, correct errors before they produce legal consequences, and simplify compliance procedures.

For a large company, a customs inspection can represent an additional administrative cost. For a small importer, it can seriously jeopardize the continuity of their business.

Therefore, technological development should contribute to reducing the asymmetries between the administration and the citizens it administers, instead of deepening them.

This does not imply weakening the fight against fraud. On the contrary, effective risk management should allow public resources to be concentrated on the operations that truly require the most attention, avoiding placing unnecessary burdens on those who strive to fulfill their obligations.

A modern customs office should not simply aim to find more offenders, but to build conditions that make compliance with the law increasingly simple, accessible, and predictable.

Digital evidence and legal liability

The very title of the workshop introduced another essential dimension: the evidentiary value of electronic customs systems in legal proceedings.

The ability to gather, process, and relate information does not mean that every conclusion obtained through an automated system constitutes, in itself, sufficient proof of non-compliance.

When artificial intelligence is involved in risk identification or the analysis of an operation, data integrity, process traceability, the ability to understand the basis of a decision, and the right of the individual to question it become especially relevant.

Technological opacity cannot be transformed into legal opacity.

One of the presentations highlighted the importance of keeping humans within the control loop: artificial intelligence can organize information and suggest conclusions, but it is up to the specialist to validate the results and assume the relevant legal responsibility.

This principle deserves special attention. Human oversight should not become a mere formality intended to automatically validate a system's conclusions. It must involve a genuine, well-founded, and verifiable review.

Algorithms do not replace the obligations of importers, exporters, and other stakeholders. Nor do they release authorities from their responsibility for the administrative acts they issue.

The greater the State's technological capacity to oversee, the greater its commitment must be to transparency, proportionality, legal certainty, and due process.

In short, artificial intelligence can contribute to producing and analyzing evidence. However, the legal assessment of that evidence remains subject to the rules and safeguards of the law.

Let's return to the initial question: Why do we want to modernize customs?

Technological transformations compel us to review tools, procedures, and knowledge. But they also offer an opportunity to reflect on the purpose of the institutions we are transforming.

Customs does not exist to collect revenue for the sake of collecting revenue, to control for the sake of controlling, or to digitize for the sake of digitizing. Its functions find meaning within a legal and economic organization designed to serve society.

Facilitating legitimate trade, combating unfair practices, ensuring compliance with the law, protecting the public interest, and guaranteeing the rights of citizens under administration are all part of the same institutional responsibility.

Technology can help us achieve it better. It cannot decide for us what the institutional purpose should be.

I take away from Cancún that conviction and, above all, new questions. Because the value of an academic gathering lies not only in the answers it offers, but also in the reflections it continues to provoke when its participants return to their daily lives.

That, for me, is pure academia.

And perhaps this is also the greatest challenge for customs law in the face of artificial intelligence: to ensure that the tools of the future serve legal principles, especially the freedom and property of individuals, preventing them from ending up at the service of technologies capable of pursuing their mistakes with seemingly infallible effectiveness.

Because it would be an undesirable outcome if, dazzled by the abundance of data, we ended up losing sight of the reality that this data is meant to represent and, above all, the respect due to citizens, at whose service every public administration must be, regardless of the human or technological tools it uses.

^[1] Source: OECD et al. (2026), Tax Statistics in Latin America and the Caribbean 2026, Chapter 4, Tables of Detailed Tax Revenues by Country, data corresponding to 2024. Calculated by the author using the simple arithmetic mean of the share of customs and import duties (heading 5123) in the total tax revenues of 17 Latin American countries with available data. Export taxes (heading 5124) and non-Latin American Caribbean countries are excluded. Estimated result: 3 %.

Foreign trade consulting

At MJE Comercio Exterior we advise companies on customs law, antidumping defense, strategic foreign trade planning e temporary importation and CTIT.

Discover our International Platform, Read more articles and presentations o Contact our team.

Author

Dr. María José Etulain Sórensen

Consultant in foreign trade and internationalization strategy. Advisor to companies in Argentina and the USA. Attorney specializing in Argentine Customs, dumping, and risk management. Member of the Customs and International Trade Bar Association (CITBA – USA). Member No. 96 of the International Customs Law Association (ICLA). Foreign Legal Consultant specializing in Argentine law, registered with the Florida Bar (USA). Coordinator of the Foreign Trade Committee of the Argentine-American Chamber of Commerce of Florida (USA). Director of MJE Global.

Original source/publication

Article originally published in Mercojuris on October 12, 2026. Read the original article on Mercojuris

Frequently Asked Questions