The recent reform to the Customs Law once again highlighted the gap between regulatory intent and the actual operation of foreign trade . At the Customs Law panel discussion during the 20th Annual Convention of the Mexican Institute of Foreign Trade Executives (IMECE) , specialists agreed that the new regulatory framework—promoted under the guise of control, traceability, and digitalization—threatens to push the customs system toward a silent paralysis if implemented without risk assessment, infrastructure, and operational clarity.
Felipe Miguel González Jaime, CEO of Corporación México Express and moderator of the panel, summed it up with a phrase that set the tone for the debate: “I no longer call him the joint customs broker, but the solitary customs broker .” With this, he illustrated the disproportionate increase in responsibilities, fines, and operational burdens placed on an actor who, for all practical purposes, has no total control over the merchandise or the accuracy of the information he receives.
The starting point was Article 42, which was formally unchanged, but which in practice carries significant weight by mandating a level of exhaustive review that contradicts the philosophy of facilitation. Zaira Padilla, president of the Association of Strategic Bonded Warehouses (ARFE) , warned that the obligation to inspect each shipment with millimeter precision negates the purpose of risk analysis and threatens to overwhelm the operational capacity of the warehouses . “We will be juxtaposing this issue of digitization and prior information with the operational reality,” she noted, recalling that in Manzanillo alone, there are reportedly more than 15,000 abandoned containers. If every shipment must be inspected 100%, she said, the entire system will be caught between the regulation and the practical impossibility of complying with it. Her diagnosis was clear: without a balance between compliance and facilitation, Mexican customs will revert to mass control schemes that have already proven inefficient.
From a logistical perspective, Juan Pablo Pacheco, former president of the Mexican Association of Freight Forwarders (Amacarga) and liaison in Mexico for the International Federation of Freight Forwarders Associations (FIATA) , defended the role of the freight forwarder as a pre-filter and key player in origin verification. He noted that the industry has developed traceability and security tools—including progress toward the Authorized Economic Operator (AEO) program for freight forwarders—that could be integrated into the system to strengthen advance inspections . “The customs broker is not alone; we can work together,” he stated. However, he emphasized the incongruity between the demand for detailed information and the authorities’ limited capacity to utilize it. “We send the information to the SAT (Tax Administration Service), and they don’t do any analysis,” he complained, highlighting a critical gap: the system already receives data that it doesn’t use to assess risks, leading to duplicate inspections and redundant processes.
The importer’s perspective, presented by David García, president of the Foreign Trade Commission of the Mexican Employers’ Confederation (Coparmex) in the State of Mexico, was the most stark. He recounted cases of fraudulent import permits, such as the container of copper that arrived full of sandbags despite having received “the blessing of all the customs saints.” For him, the reform reinforces the customs broker’s responsibility but omits the importer’s central role as the primary source of information . “We, as importers, are primarily responsible for knowing what goods we are bringing in,” he emphasized. But he also warned that the current system is not designed to effectively contain fraud or to address the complexity of sectors dominated by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) that lack the technical knowledge to comply with the required standards. His conclusion was damning: the regulatory framework is moving toward excessive demands without simplification, without infrastructure, and without a functional one-stop shop.
In this context, the discussion surrounding the Authorized Economic Operator (AEO) program emerged as a point of contention. Zaira Padilla insisted that certification should be made more accessible and accompanied by tangible benefits . “These details need to be reviewed so that risk management facilitates customs clearance,” she stated, noting that the process currently takes between a year and a half and two years and lacks basic clarity, such as the definition of “certified customs broker” or “certified transport,” concepts that the authorities have yet to define despite requiring them. Pacheco added that the cost of some certifications, such as ISO 27000 or 28000, could create monopolies and drive smaller players out of the market. “If implementation is expensive, we will lose competitiveness,” she warned.
The case of the State of Mexico reflected another structural problem: the limited—and even fearful—use of the strategic bonded warehouse due to state tax criteria that, since 2003, have required the payment of 16% VAT on transactions interpreted as sales within the national territory . “Eight out of every ten audited taxpayers had to pay,” said David García, recalling that even transactions involving merchandise acquired abroad were treated as local sales simply due to a lack of awareness and inconsistent criteria, which hindered the use of the RFE (Strategic Bonded Warehouse) as a logistical tool.
The panel concluded with a shared message: without interoperability between the Mexican Tax Administration Service (SAT) and the National Customs Agency of Mexico (ANAM) , without effective use of transmitted data, without clear manuals, and without risk criteria to distinguish reliable actors, customs reform will be incapable of modernizing anything. Zaira summarized it with a complaint: “We have an electronic customs system, but there is no communication at the central level .” David encapsulated the urgency from a business perspective: “Ask me for whatever you want, but give me what you ask for,” demanding clear rules, defined processes, and a functional single window. And González Jaime offered the final reflection: the authorities cannot revert to the customs practices of the 1980s for fear of non-compliance; if there is advance information, certified actors, and traceability, “most goods are reliable.” The challenge is not to tighten regulations for the sake of tightening them, but to use intelligence, technology, and risk management to ensure trade flows smoothly without sacrificing control. Because, as he warned, “in the end, we will all be the ones who suffer.”
Comment and follow us on X: @EnriqueDuRio / @GrupoT21
