Detailed Explanation of Statutory Circumstances and Identification Standards for Customs Seizure of Goods

Customs seizure of goods, as a mandatory administrative compulsory measure, is a core means for customs authorities to perform cross-border supervision duties and safeguard national trade order and tax security. Its implementation must strictly adhere to the three principles of “statutory circumstances, statutory authority, and statutory procedures.” Any seizure act beyond legal boundaries shall bear corresponding legal responsibilities. Combining laws and regulations such as the Customs Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Customs Law), the Regulations on Customs Protection of Intellectual Property Rights, and customs practice, this article systematically analyzes the statutory circumstances and identification standards for cargo seizure, providing compliance guidance for import and export enterprises and relevant entities.

I. Legal Positioning and Core Principles of Customs Cargo Seizure

Customs seizure of goods, often referred to as “detention” in legal norms, refers to an administrative compulsory measure by which customs authorities temporarily control inbound and outbound goods suspected of violating laws or requiring tax preservation during the performance of supervision duties. Its essence is to ensure the smooth progress of subsequent investigation, punishment, or tax collection procedures, rather than a final punitive measure, and is characterized by temporariness and guarantee.

The implementation of cargo seizure must strictly follow three core principles:

1. Legality Principle: The circumstances, authority, and procedures for seizure must have clear legal basis. For example, Articles 6 and 61 of the Customs Law stipulate rigid rules for the exercise of seizure authority;
2. Proportionality Principle: The scope of seized goods must match the suspected illegal circumstances or the degree of tax risk, and must not exceed the necessary limit;
3. Procedural Justice Principle: Seizure must go through statutory approval procedures, issue written certificates, and clearly inform the parties of the channels for remedy of rights.

II. Five Statutory Circumstances for Customs Cargo Seizure

According to current laws and regulations, the statutory circumstances for customs cargo seizure can be divided into five categories: suspicion of smuggling, illegal inbound/outbound, tax preservation, intellectual property infringement, and audit-related cases. Each category has clear application boundaries and legal basis.

(I) Seizure of Goods Suspected of Smuggling

Smuggling is the core target of customs supervision. Seizing goods suspected of smuggling is a key link in curbing smuggling activities. Such seizures mainly apply to the following two scenarios:

1. Seizure of Smuggling Suspicions in Supervision Areas and Surroundings

In customs supervision areas and designated coastal and border areas near customs, if customs authorities discover that transportation vehicles are suspected of smuggling, places are suspected of hiding smuggled goods, or goods are suspected of smuggling through inspection, they may directly detain the goods upon approval by the director of a directly subordinate customs house or an authorized director of a subordinate customs house. The core trigger for this circumstance is “suspicion of smuggling,” which usually manifests as obvious illegal signs such as failure to complete customs declaration procedures, false declaration of goods names or values, or concealment of prohibited items.

2. Seizure in Smuggling Case Investigations Outside Supervision Areas

When investigating smuggling cases outside supervision areas, customs authorities must first obtain approval at the above-mentioned level to inspect transportation vehicles suspected of smuggling or hiding places (excluding citizens’ residences). Goods can only be detained if “there is evidence to prove smuggling suspicion.” If the party is not present, inspection and detention may only be conducted with a witness present. The requirement of “evidence proof” here is higher than mere “suspicion,” and preliminary evidence such as inconsistencies between customs declarations and goods, or witness testimony, is required.

(II) Seizure of Goods Suspected of Illegal Inbound/Outbound

Compared with the intentional illegality of smuggling, illegal inbound/outbound acts mostly involve violations of supervision regulations without constituting smuggling. The seizure of such goods is mainly based on the general authorization in Article 6 of the Customs Law:

1. Goods Violating Laws and Administrative Regulations

During the inspection of inbound and outbound goods, if customs authorities discover that goods violate the Customs Law or other relevant laws and administrative regulations (such as the Law on Import and Export Commodity Inspection, the Food Safety Law), they may directly detain the goods. Common circumstances include: goods exceeding the scope approved by permits, failure to complete quarantine approval procedures as required, and packaging not meeting safety standards.

2. Goods Related to Illegal Cases

When reviewing or copying contracts, invoices, account books, and other materials related to inbound and outbound goods, if it is found that the goods are related to verified illegal cases, even if the goods themselves do not directly show illegality, customs authorities may detain the goods as evidence for case investigation. For example, if an enterprise is under investigation for underreporting prices to smuggle, customs may detain its 同期 imported/exported similar goods to fix price evidence.

(III) Seizure of Goods for Tax Preservation Purposes

To safeguard the realization of national tax claims, customs authorities may seize goods at risk of tax loss. Such seizures are an important part of tax preservation measures and require strict preconditions for application:

1. Taxpayer Conduct Triggering Risks

A prerequisite for initiating tax preservation seizure is that the taxpayer of inbound and outbound goods shows “obvious signs of transferring or concealing taxable goods and other properties” within the prescribed tax payment period. The “obvious signs” here must have objective basis, such as an enterprise suddenly transferring inventory goods or canceling bank accounts.

2. Pre-requisite of Guarantee and Approval Requirements

After discovering tax loss risks, customs authorities shall first order the taxpayer to provide a guarantee; only if the taxpayer fails to provide a valid guarantee may the customs detain goods worth equivalent to the payable tax upon approval by the director of a directly subordinate customs house or an authorized director of a subordinate customs house. This procedural design reflects the “guarantee priority” principle, minimizing the impact on the normal operation of enterprises.

3. Termination and Conversion of Seizure

If the taxpayer pays the tax within the prescribed period, customs must immediately terminate the seizure; if the tax remains unpaid upon the expiration of the period, the detained goods may be lawfully sold upon approval, and the proceeds from the sale shall be used to offset the tax. It should be noted that customs shall first use the proceeds from the sale of detained goods to settle taxes and late payment fees, and return any remaining amount to the party.

(IV) Seizure of Goods Suspected of Intellectual Property Infringement

Customs protection of intellectual property rights is one of the statutory duties of customs. Seizing goods suspected of infringement must be based on the special provisions of the Regulations on Customs Protection of Intellectual Property Rights, with the core being the dual requirements of “application by the right holder + provision of guarantee”:

1. Active Application by the Right Holder as a Precondition

If an intellectual property right holder (such as a patentee or trademark owner) discovers that inbound or outbound goods are suspected of infringing their intellectual property rights, they shall submit a written application for detention to customs, specifying key information such as the name, specifications, and reasons for infringement of the suspected infringing goods. Customs shall not initiate such seizure procedures on its own initiative, reflecting the principle of “no action without a complaint.”

2. Valid Guarantee as a Necessary Condition for Seizure

The right holder shall provide a guarantee in accordance with regulations, and the guarantee amount shall be sufficient to compensate for losses that may be caused to the consignee or consignor due to erroneous seizure. Customs shall not detain goods if no guarantee is provided or the guarantee is insufficient. In practice, guarantee forms usually include cash, bank guarantees, or guarantees for intellectual property customs protection registration.

3. Special Nature of Detention Period

Unlike the 1-year detention period for general goods, the detention period for goods suspected of infringement is strictly limited to 20 working days. If no court notice for assistance in enforcement is received during this period, customs must release the goods to avoid excessive restriction on the circulation of goods. This period regulation balances the protection of intellectual property rights and trade efficiency.

(V) Seizure of Goods Related to Customs Audit Cases

During customs audits, to prevent the destruction of evidence or transfer of goods, customs may seize imported/exported goods suspected of illegality. Such seizures are triggered by scenarios clearly related to audit matters:

1. Seizure for Evidence Preservation

If customs discovers during an audit that the auditee may transfer, conceal, alter, or destroy account books, documents, or other materials, or that imported/exported goods are suspected of illegality, it may seal up or detain the relevant goods upon approval by the director of a directly subordinate customs house or an authorized director of a subordinate customs house. The “suspicion of illegality” here must be directly related to the audit matter. For example, if an audit discovers that an enterprise is suspected of unauthorized domestic sale of bonded goods, the relevant bonded goods may be detained.

2. Incidental Obligations of Seizure

When implementing such seizures, customs shall not hinder the auditee’s normal production and operation activities, and shall immediately terminate the seizure after clarifying the situation or completing evidence collection. This requirement reflects the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of enterprises in the audit process.

III. Core Identification Standards for Customs Cargo Seizure

The application of statutory circumstances must be implemented through specific identification standards. In practice, customs authorities determine whether the seizure conditions are met from three dimensions—evidence standards, procedural standards, and authority standards—all of which are indispensable.

(I) Evidence Standards: Gradient Requirements from “Suspicion” to “Evidence Proof”

Different seizure circumstances have distinct gradient requirements for evidence, which is the key to distinguishing the legality of seizure:

1. Evidence Gradient for Smuggling Suspicion Seizures

Seizure in supervision areas only requires preliminary signs of “smuggling suspicion,” such as significant inconsistencies between goods and customs declarations, or transportation vehicles without legal transportation certificates; while seizure outside supervision areas requires “evidence to prove smuggling suspicion,” which requires more solid evidence such as identification of some goods as prohibited items or transcripts of the party admitting false declaration.

2. Evidence Requirements for Illegal and Infringement Seizures

Seizure of illegal goods requires direct evidence of “violating laws and administrative regulations,” such as unqualified reports issued by inspection and quarantine departments or certificates of expired permits; seizure of infringing goods relies on preliminary evidence provided by the right holder, such as infringement comparison statements and right certification documents, and customs only reviews the formal legality of the evidence.

3. Evidence Rigidity for Tax Preservation Seizures

Such seizures must have evidence of “obvious signs of transferring or concealing taxable goods,” such as customs monitoring records and bank account statements. Additionally, evidence of the failure to provide a guarantee after being urged is also a necessary prerequisite.

(II) Procedural Standards: Statutory Requirements for Approval, Certificates, and Periods

Procedural justice is the lifeline of administrative compulsory measures. The procedural standards for customs cargo seizure are mainly reflected in the following three aspects:

1. Hierarchical Approval Procedures

Except for the immediate seizure of illegal goods discovered during inspection, all other circumstances require approval by “the director of a directly subordinate customs house or an authorized director of a subordinate customs house.” Any seizure without approval is illegal. Authorized approval must be in writing, specifying the scope and term of authorization, and unlimited authorization is prohibited.

2. Written Certificate and Notification Procedures

When detaining goods, customs must issue a written certificate such as a Customs Detention Certificate, specifying the name, quantity, reason for detention, detention period, and the parties’ rights, and deliver it to the consignee or consignor. For goods suspected of infringement, customs must also notify the intellectual property right holder in writing.

3. Statutory Restrictions on Detention Periods

The detention period for general goods shall not exceed 1 year, and may be extended by 1 year upon approval if necessary for investigation, but there is no clear regulation on the number of extensions; the detention period for goods suspected of infringement is strictly limited to 20 working days, excluding professional identification time such as testing and inspection. If detention exceeds the time limit without legal extension procedures, the party may claim that customs has acted illegally and demand compensation.

(III) Authority Standards: Boundary Restrictions on Regions and Cargo Scope

The authority of customs to seize goods is not unlimited, but is restricted by both regional and cargo scope boundaries:

1. Regional Authority Boundaries

Customs has relatively flexible seizure authority in supervision areas and surrounding areas; outside supervision areas, it may only seize specific objects in smuggling case investigations, and inspection and detention of citizens’ residences is strictly restricted. Cross-customs area seizures require collaboration between relevant customs authorities, and unauthorized crossing of jurisdiction is prohibited.

2. Cargo Scope Authority Boundaries

Seized goods must be directly related to the suspected illegal matter, and “collective seizure” of unrelated goods is prohibited; the value of goods seized for tax preservation must be equivalent to the payable tax, and over-seizure is prohibited; for dangerous goods, perishable goods, and other goods not suitable for long-term storage, customs may sell them in advance upon approval, and the proceeds shall be kept by customs.

IV. Practical Dispute Focuses and Remedy Paths for Rights

In the practical operation of customs cargo seizure, disputes often arise due to ambiguous application of identification standards. Parties need to clarify the focus of disputes and take legal remedy measures.

(I) Analysis of Common Dispute Focuses

1. Disputes over the Definition of “Smuggling Suspicion” and “Evidence Proof”

In practice, some customs authorities detain goods on the grounds of “reasonable suspicion” without meeting the “evidence proof” standard, which is prone to disputes, especially for seizures outside supervision areas. The core of judgment lies in whether there is objective evidence to support the suspicion, rather than subjective assumption.

2. Disputes over the Calculation of Detention Periods

Whether the time for testing, inspection, and other professional identification is included in the detention period is a common dispute. According to regulations, such time is clearly excluded from the detention period, but customs must issue an official letter from the identification agency to prove the identification cycle; otherwise, it shall still be included in the detention period.

3. Disputes over Over-Seizure and Irrelevant Seizure

Seizing goods with a value far exceeding the payable tax for tax preservation, or seizing all of an enterprise’s imported/exported goods due to a single illegal matter, are both acts of exceeding authority. The party may provide evidence of the value of the goods and explanations of relevance, and request the termination of the seizure of the excessive or irrelevant part.

(II) Statutory Paths for Remedy of Rights

1. Administrative Reconsideration and Administrative Litigation

If a party disagrees with the customs seizure decision, it may apply for administrative reconsideration within 60 days from the date of knowing the specific administrative act, or directly file an administrative lawsuit with the people’s court within 6 months, claiming that the seizure is illegal and requesting the termination of the seizure. The reconsideration authority is the higher-level customs, and the jurisdiction of the lawsuit lies with the intermediate people’s court at the place where the customs is located.

2. Claim for State Compensation

If illegal customs seizure causes damage to the party’s legitimate rights and interests (such as deterioration of goods or missed transaction deadlines), the party may claim state compensation from customs after confirming that the seizure is illegal, requiring compensation for actual losses. The scope of compensation includes direct losses of the goods themselves and reasonable expected interest losses.

3. Immediate Remedy Measures

For perishable, seasonal goods, the party may apply to customs for advance sale or release upon providing a guarantee to avoid expanding losses. If customs refuses without justifiable reasons, the party may request the reconsideration authority to order customs to perform its duties through the reconsideration procedure.

V. Compliance Suggestions for Enterprises in Response to Customs Seizure

As the main counterparties of cargo seizure, import and export enterprises should establish a compliance system from three levels: prevention, response, and remedy.

1. Pre-Prevention: Strengthen Internal Compliance Management

Establish and improve compliance systems for import and export business, ensuring consistency between customs declarations, contracts, invoices, and other documents and the actual goods; promptly complete formalities such as permits and quarantine approval; for goods involving intellectual property rights, complete customs protection registration in advance to avoid infringement risks.

2. In-Process Response: Standardize Cooperation and Evidence Preservation

During customs inspection, enterprises should send personnel to cooperate throughout the process and truthfully provide relevant materials; for seizure decisions, they must obtain written certificates specifying the reason and period for detention; take photos and videos of the status of the detained goods to preserve evidence of the original state of the goods and avoid disputes over cargo damage later.

3. Post-Remedy: Lawfully Claim Legitimate Rights

After receiving the detention notice, promptly verify whether the statutory circumstances and identification standards for seizure are legal; for illegal seizures, apply for administrative reconsideration or file an administrative lawsuit within the statutory time limit; actively claim state compensation for losses incurred, maximizing the protection of their own interests.

Conclusion

As an important administrative compulsory measure, the application of statutory circumstances and the grasp of identification standards for customs cargo seizure directly relate to the balance between national supervision order and the legitimate rights and interests of market entities. Customs must strictly follow statutory authority and procedures, accurately apply identification standards, and prevent abuse of power; enterprises must strengthen compliance awareness, clarify the paths for remedy of rights, and lawfully safeguard their own interests when facing seizure. Only when both parties jointly abide by the principle of the rule of law can the organic unity of customs supervision efficiency and trade facilitation be achieved.