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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2014all 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n All of this suggests that the best defense lies not in the summary of the case, but much earlier, in the prevention<\/a>. 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The team of MJE Foreign Trade<\/a> provides assistance to importing and exporting companies in matters of customs compliance<\/a>, administrative defense and strategic planning.<\/a> to minimize legal contingencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWhy e-commerce changed the landscape<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A risk that rarely travels alone<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The economic cost of trademark fraud<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Prevention as the best defense<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Do you need advice on customs law or risk prevention in international trade operations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n