The Executive Branch has decided to repeal the Statistical System of Imports (SEDI) (1), so that it is no longer necessary to request prior authorization or wait for validation from officials of the Ministry of Commerce to purchase and import merchandise.
This measure is neither minor nor irrelevant, as it would seem to put an end to managed foreign trade. Indeed, while it is true that the SEDI and its predecessors, formally speaking, served as an instrument for anticipating information for statistical purposes and improving order, the truth is that, through them, our country's foreign trade has been managed for 25 years.
For some time now, anyone interested in importing goods, in addition to securing the best price for the best merchandise available on the market, had to obtain authorization from the Ministry of Commerce. Thus, the freedom to import guaranteed by the Constitution was subject to the approval of the official on duty.
These prior approvals were sometimes granted, and in some cases not, with no further explanation other than silence. In other words, in these cases, there was no legally based rejection, but simply the administration's silence, which in fact amounted to an import ban implemented de facto.
A few years ago, in 2023, the Argentine Chamber of Commerce and Services published a report on this issue (2), and the data was alarming and showed that this system of prior authorizations was generating some significant setbacks. For now, at the time of the report, serious problems were being generated in the supply of inputs, intermediate goods, and finished products. This situation affects all industries without distinction.
According to this study, 76% of companies had received less than 25% of the import authorizations they had requested; delays in obtaining approvals were up to 90 days; and 83% of the companies surveyed already had levels of inputs, inventory, and sales below normal standards. It was therefore evident that delays in granting import authorizations directly affected the normal production and marketing of their final products.
It's hard to understand how a simple prior intervention, designed for statistical purposes and better administrative order, could cause so much inconvenience to those governed, since it's strange to accept so much harm for statistical purposes. Clearly, this is only understandable if, through it, other, surely more important purposes than the accumulation of information for statistical purposes were pursued.
At this point, we cannot fail to point out that it is quite obvious that foreign trade management was closely linked to our country's balance of payments and/or the maintenance of the value of the dollar, depending on how you view it.
The truth is that, whether we accept the formal purpose or are inclined to consider other, more or less obvious motivations, over the last 20 or 25 years we have observed the imposition of pre-import interventions to advance the purchase and import of goods from abroad. This situation has generated countless inconveniences.
At first, progress was made by industry, with the so-called import certificates (CI), then the thing became massive and the Import Licences (LI) arrived, in turn the Advance Import Declarations (DJAI) were imposed and finally the Comprehensive Import Monitoring System (SIMI) was established, which later gave rise to the Import System of the Argentine Republic (SIRA) and more recently to the Statistical Import System (SEDI).
As we have pointed out, the reasons that have supported these administrative measures in their recitals have been varied, but there is a common pattern that has to do with the alleged increase in the flow of income from merchandise whose behavior was convenient to evaluate, so that the control authority (AFIP / ARCA) would have the necessary tools to facilitate the coordination of control actions.
Strictly speaking, after so many years of experience and in line with what was anticipated, it is clear that these were instruments designed to control and manage the flow of incoming goods with the goal of controlling the balance of payments. Furthermore, it is also clear that the mechanism sought to circumvent the restrictions imposed on our country by international agreements regarding the establishment of import quotas or restrictions.
The truth is that during all these years, anyone seeking to import goods had to first request prior authorization, during which process they could receive absolute silence from the Administration.
At this point in the game, it's clear that there's consensus on the harmlessness of advance information, as long as it's provided through an efficient, agile, and expeditious procedure. However, the problem arises when, through it, restrictions or even import bans are created that violate individual rights.
It is clear that the delay in granting import authorizations, caused by the administration's simple silence, violates individual rights. This silence constitutes a true import ban.
It is important to emphasize that the international commitments signed by our country and the vast majority of nations prevent us from establishing quantitative import bans.
In the middle of the last century, a conference was held in Bretton Woods (New Hampshire, United States) that devised an international system of agreements and institutions based on three fundamental pillars: a) the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which was created with the mission of governing the global monetary system, b) the World Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank), designed to facilitate the flow of long-term capital, and c) the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), as a sort of global code of international trade guidelines.
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was further refined through meetings known as "Rounds." The "Uruguay Round" concluded with the Final Act signed in Marrakesh in April 1994, establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO).
The General Agreement established general rules for international trade in goods, with the aim of adapting the regulations of the States Parties to certain guidelines and limitations that would ensure their development in conditions of loyalty, transparency and predictability, condemning discriminatory treatment and seeking the progressive reduction of customs tariffs, as well as the elimination of direct economic restrictions on imports.
In this context and with special interest to these lines, we can especially highlight as a central objective of the WTO the progressive liberalisation of tariffs and the determination of these tariffs as the only regulatory instrument, within a framework of genuine exchange without discrimination.
This clearly shows the impossibility of nations establishing import prohibitions on nations that are part of the Agreement, as an instrument of protection for their local industries or the balance of payments.
The prohibition established in the Agreement covers both economic restrictions on imports and exports and includes both measures that expressly or directly establish the restriction and those that indirectly or in fact impose it, such as a prior import authorization for which the request has not been answered.
In short, it is clear that since the creation of the WTO, international trade in goods must be regulated solely through customs tariffs and, consequently, direct economic restrictions, such as quotas, licenses, or prior authorizations, cannot be used.
This principle is based on the idea that the customs tariff is the basic and natural instrument of foreign trade policy. Customs tariff or tariff is understood to be the set of import and export duties levied on the import or export of goods in relation to a given customs territory.
Therefore, only tariff restrictions can be established that are easily identifiable and measurable. Therefore, non-tariff restrictions such as quotas, contingents, and licenses are not authorized to protect economic activities. The community of WTO member nations condemns direct restrictions on imports and exports.
Ultimately, protecting the balance of payments is a laudable goal that must be pursued by every administration, regardless of its political affiliation. This, of course, must be based on respect for and application of the letter and principles contained in the National Constitution and international treaties, especially the WTO Agreements.
The implementation of measures that contravene constitutional norms and principles, violate international agreements, or even domestic laws, undermine the rule of law and legal certainty.
Thus, we understand that the elimination of the SEDIs represents a giant step forward, as it does not eliminate a system of advance information, but rather a system of trade administration that, in practice, was often abusive and arbitrary, in addition to violating constitutional and supra-legal principles.
Delegating to officials of the Ministry of Commerce who could import, for what amounts, and when—to the detriment of those who were not authorized—is questionable and dangerous.
On the other hand, and this surely exceeds the scope of this document, it is imperative to seek a solution to our country's balance of payments, surely the hidden purpose of prior authorizations, with the implementation of state policies that promote exports, as well as increasing the added value of exportable goods.
According to Sofía Diamante in the Economic supplement of the La Nación newspaper, the consulting firm Abeceb (3) projects that by 2033, Argentine exports could reach US$ 128.000 billion, an increase of US$ 79.300 billion over current levels. The pillars on which growing and sustainable development could be achieved are agroindustry, energy, mining, and knowledge-based services. This seems to be the way forward.
1. Joint Resolution of ARCA and SIC No. 5651/2025.
2.https://www.cac.com.ar/noticias/sira-resultados-de-la-encuesta-sobre-el-nuevo-sistema-de-importaciones
3. https://www.lanacion.com.ar/economia/boom-de-dolares-un-estudio-ancipa-cuales-son-los-sectores-que-terminaran-con-el-gran-problema-nid10032025/
Attorney (UCA), Partner at Petersen & Cotter Moine Law Firm.
Full Member of the Argentine Institute of Customs Studies (President 2010/2011). Active Member of the International Academy of Customs Law (Member of the Board of Directors 2015/2023). Active Member of the Argentine Association of Tax Studies. Member of the Customs Law Commission of the Council of the Center for Studies of Financial Law and Tax Law, of the Department of Business Economic Law of the Faculty of Law of the University of Buenos Aires. Member of the Scientific Committee of the Journal of the Colombian Institute of Tax Law.
Professor of customs law in the postgraduate courses in customs law at the University of Buenos Aires, where he is also the Vice President of the Customs Law Update; of the Catholic University of Argentina, of the Austral University and of the Di Tella University.
Author of the books “Customs Law and International Trade”, published in 2018 by Guía Práctica; “Customs Law”, published in 2014 in 3 volumes by Abeledo Perrot, winner of the 2014 Argentine Association of Tax Studies Award for the book of the year; “Customs Offenses”, published in 2011 and second edition in 2013 by Abeledo Perrot; and Coordinator and co-author of the books “Customs Law Studies”, published in 2007 by Lexis Nexis and “Customs Law Studies. 30 Years of the Customs Code”, published in 2012 by Abeledo Perrot. He was one of the updaters of the Annotated Customs Code, published in 3 volumes by Abeledo Perrot in 2012.
He has also participated in collective books published abroad and has published more than fifty articles related to customs law, published in various media (La Ley, El Derecho, Jurisprudencia, Revista de Derecho Fiscal, Revista de Estudios Aduaneros, Revista Tribunas, and La Nación newspaper).
