Customs forfeiture penalty — the loss of goods, vehicle and currency for damage to the Treasury
The customs forfeiture penalty is the most severe administrative sanction in customs law: it decrees the definitive loss of goods, vehicles and currency in foreign-trade operations for damage to the Treasury, without indemnity to the owner. Its footing is not a single law, but a set — Decree-Law 37/1966 (art. 104, loss of the vehicle; art. 105, loss of the goods), Decree-Law 1.455/1976 (arts. 23 and 24, damage to the Treasury) and the Customs Regulation (Decree 6.759/2009). Since Law 14.651/2023, the judgment has a two-tier administrative review at the CEJUL, with a 20-day challenge and a 20-day appeal.
What it is and why it is the most severe sanction
The customs forfeiture penalty takes the very thing away from the private party: the asset — goods, vehicle or currency — passes into the ownership of the Federal Union, without indemnity. That is why it is the gravest penalty in customs law, distinct from a fine (which reaches assets in cash). Its nature is mixed, repressive-compensatory: it punishes the unlawful conduct and restores the damage to the Treasury. Because it arises from customs legislation, it does not depend on a criminal conviction and is applied by the Federal Revenue Service itself, within administrative proceedings.
There is no single “Forfeiture Law”: the regime results from Decree-Law 37/1966 (art. 104, loss of the vehicle; art. 105, with nineteen situations of loss of the goods), Decree-Law 1.455/1976 (arts. 23 and 24, damage to the Treasury, punished with forfeiture by §1 of art. 23), Law 14.651/2023 (which reformed the procedure) and the Customs Regulation (Decree 6.759/2009). Understanding that the footing is plural helps to locate, in the notice of assessment, which specific provision the tax authority invoked — and it is on that provision that the defense is built.
Customs forfeiture and criminal forfeiture
They are distinct figures that are not to be confused. Customs forfeiture is the administrative sanction of customs legislation (DL 37/1966 and DL 1.455/1976), which does not depend on a crime and is applied by the Federal Revenue Service. Criminal forfeiture/confiscation arises from art. 91 of the Criminal Code, as an effect of the conviction, decreed by the criminal court. The spheres are autonomous and may coexist over the same fact.
Orbiting the topic, in the criminal field, are descaminho (art. 334 of the Criminal Code — evading the tax on the import of permitted goods) and smuggling (art. 334-A — prohibited goods), separated by Law 13.008/2014. Descaminho is a formal crime and payment of the tax does not extinguish criminal liability; the principle of insignificance applies up to BRL 20,000.00 (art. 20 of Law 10.522/2002), save for recidivism. Confiscation in drug trafficking (art. 243 of the CF; STF, Theme 647), in turn, is a track of its own that is not imported into customs defense.
Situations, fraudulent interposition and conversion into a fine
“Goods in forfeiture” are the goods seized for falling within a legal situation — under art. 105 of DL 37/1966 (concealed goods, forged document, false declaration of contents, splitting to evade the tax, among the nineteen) — or for amounting to damage to the Treasury (art. 23 of DL 1.455/1976). The situation of greatest economic value is fraudulent interposition (art. 23, V): it is presumed (§2, a rebuttable presumption) when the origin, availability and transfer of the funds employed are not proven — which shifts the burden of proof to the importer.
When the goods are not located, have been consumed or resold, the forfeiture is converted into a fine equivalent to the customs value (art. 23, §3 of DL 1.455/1976; art. 689, §1 of the Customs Regulation) — and that fine follows the tax litigation procedure (Decree 70.235/1972), not the CEJUL. In the forfeiture of a vehicle, the consolidated defense arguments are the owner’s good faith (Precedent 138 of the extinct TFR) and proportionality between the value of the vehicle and that of the cargo.
How to defend yourself: the CEJUL procedure
Since Law 14.651/2023, the judgment of forfeiture is no longer single-instance and now has a two-tier administrative review at the CEJUL — Center for the Judgment of Customs Penalties, a body of the Federal Revenue Service created by Normative Ordinance MF No. 1.005/2023, with the ENAJ at the first instance and the Appeals Chambers at the second. The CEJUL is not the CARF: it has exclusive competence over customs penalties, whereas the CARF judges tax litigation.
The deadlines are short: a challenge within 20 days of notice (art. 27-A) and, if the first instance is unfavorable, an appeal within 20 days (art. 27-D). It is worth disregarding content that attributes to MP 1.309/2025 any change to the regime — it instituted the “Brasil Soberano Plan”, does not deal with forfeiture and lost effectiveness in December 2025. The complete guide — situations, defense arguments, procedure and judicial channel — is in the customs forfeiture penalty: how to defend yourself cluster.
Frequently asked questions about the customs forfeiture penalty
What is the customs forfeiture penalty?
It is the most severe administrative sanction in customs law: the definitive loss of goods, vehicle or currency in a foreign-trade operation, for damage to the Treasury, without indemnity to the owner. The footing is a set of rules — Decree-Law 37/1966 (arts. 104 and 105), Decree-Law 1.455/1976 (arts. 23 and 24) and the Customs Regulation (Decree 6.759/2009) — and not a single law. Because it arises from customs legislation, it does not depend on a criminal conviction and is applied by the Federal Revenue Service in administrative proceedings.
Is the customs forfeiture penalty the same as criminal confiscation?
No. Customs forfeiture is an administrative sanction of customs legislation (DL 37/1966 and DL 1.455/1976), which does not depend on a crime. Criminal forfeiture/confiscation is an effect of the conviction, based on art. 91 of the Criminal Code and decreed by the criminal court. The two figures are autonomous and may coexist over the same fact.
What is the deadline to defend against a customs forfeiture penalty?
Since Law 14.651/2023, the challenge must be filed within 20 days of notice (art. 27-A of DL 1.455/1976) and, if the first-instance decision is unfavorable, an appeal is due within 20 days (art. 27-D). The judgment proceeds at the CEJUL — Center for the Judgment of Customs Penalties — with the ENAJ at the first instance and the Appeals Chambers at the second. The CEJUL is not the CARF.