Termination of the official settlement process and initiation of the forfeiture process

Through Concept No. 013677 int 1371 of 2025, DIAN resolved the following question:

"If, during the official settlement process, the customs authority determines that the tariff classification of the goods does not correspond to the one declared and the new classification requires a prior license, is it appropriate to terminate the process to initiate the forfeiture process under the grounds of numeral 7 of Article 69 of Decree Law 920 of 2023?"

As a conclusion, the Customs Authority indicated that if, during the administrative process of official settlement, it is determined that the goods for which lower customs duties were paid in the import declaration correspond to another tariff classification that requires compliance with a legal or administrative restriction,it is necessary that before terminating the official settlement process, a technical opinion is obtained that corroborates such classification, issued by the competent DIAN departments.

This is because, if the technical support or opinion determines that the declared goods, for which lower customs duties were paid, correspond to another tariff classification that requires compliance with a legal and/or administrative restriction, and the interested party does not prove during the process that the mentioned restriction has been overcome, the goods will fall under the grounds for seizure in numeral 7 of Article 69 of Decree Law 920 of 2024, and this will lead to the termination of the ongoing process and the initiation of the forfeiture process in accordance with the final paragraph of Article 99 of Decree Law 920 of 2023.

Addition to Concept 032146 int. 1466 of 2019 – General Concept of Diplomatic Imports

Through Concept No. 013606 int 1364 of 2025, the general concept of diplomatic imports was amended to modify descriptor 2.10 regarding customs authority controls over the declaration. In this sense, the addition mainly addressed the following question:

What disputes regarding the value of the vehicle may arise at the time of the import declaration inspection or in subsequent control?

(i) If, during simultaneous control, DIAN finds that the value of the vehicle is lower and the beneficiary voluntarily corrects the declaration by increasing the declared FOB value in USD, without exceeding the established quota, the benefit provided in Decree 2148 of 1991 is maintained.

(ii) If, during simultaneous control, the beneficiary voluntarily corrects the declaration by increasing the declared FOB value in USD, and this FOB value exceeds the quotas established to access the exemption or reduction of customs duties, the applicable customs duties must be paid. Consequently, the benefit established in Decree 2148 of 1991 is lost.

(iii) If, during subsequent control, the customs authority finds that the declared customs value, specifically the FOB value, does not correspond to the price actually paid or payable for the vehicle, an official value review settlement may be issued under the terms of Article 104 of Decree Law 920 of 2023, provided the quota is not exceeded. Otherwise, the vehicle will be subject to seizure unless the circumstances leading to it are remedied.

In addition to the above, other questions of interest were answered, which can be viewed by clicking on the concept link.

Violation of the Principle of Exclusivity – Free Trade Zones

Through Concept No. 011925 int 1384 of 2025, DIAN explained that, by virtue of the principle of exclusivity established in Article 6 of Decree 2147 of 2016, an industrial user of goods and/or services qualified in a free trade zone may have or store nationalized assets and/or goods outside the area declared as a free trade zone, as long as this does not involve carrying out income-generating activities and/or activities related to their authorized or qualified corporate purpose.

In this sense, the mere possession or storage of nationalized goods (freely available in the rest of the national customs territory), according to the provisions of Articles 4, 6, and 11 of Decree 2147 of 2016, outside the free trade zone does not constitute a violation of the principle of exclusivity, provided that these are not used to generate income, costs, or expenses related to the activity for which the user was qualified.