Customs clearance: stages, channels and deadlines.
What happens between registration of the declaration and release of the cargo — and what to do when it stalls.

What customs clearance is — and why it is not a synonym for the clearance procedure

In the everyday language of foreign trade, “customs clearance” has become a synonym for the whole process of releasing imported cargo. Technically, the two terms are not the same. The import customs clearance procedure is the process: the set of acts by which the Federal Revenue Service verifies the accuracy of the data declared by the importer against the imported goods, the instructing documents and the applicable legislation. Customs clearance is the act that closes that procedure: under art. 571 of the Customs Regulation (Decree 6.759/2009), it is the act that records the conclusion of the customs verification — and it is what authorizes the release of the goods to the importer.

Why the distinction matters in practice

Whoever is arguing about delay, a demand or retention is arguing about the clearance procedure — the stages and the deadlines of the process. Whoever reads “customs clearance concluded” in the tracking of the declaration is looking at the final act: the verification is over and release of the cargo is authorized. From there on, physical collection no longer depends on the Federal Revenue Service and comes to depend on the bonded facility — storage, scheduling and collection logistics. The lean definition of the term is in the glossary entry for customs clearance; this page covers how it works in full.

The scale of the operation — and what the official figures say

The import clearance procedure is a very high-volume machine. In 2024, 2,865,241 import declarations were registered (DI and Duimp combined), up 11.5% on 2023, moving USD 304.79 billion in imports (+8.49%). The overwhelming majority flows without human intervention: over 97.5% of declarations went straight to the green channel — selection for verification channels stood at 2.41% for the year. The bottleneck is statistically the exception; but, when it reaches your cargo, the cost is immediate and compounding.

Update note (July 2026). The Federal Revenue Service submitted for public consultation, between 06/18/2026 and 07/17/2026 (Brasil Participativo platform), the proposal for a new Normative Instruction that will consolidate the rules of the import clearance procedure — absorbing RFB IN 680/2006 and incorporating the Single Window and the Duimp. Until the new rule is published, IN 680/2006 remains in force and is the basis of this page. This page will be revised when the new IN is issued.

The four stages of the import clearance procedure

RFB IN 680/2006 organizes the import clearance procedure into a sequence worth knowing stage by stage — because each possible stall has an address in one of them.

1. Registration of the declaration

The procedure begins with registration of the import declaration — the DI on Siscomex or, in operations already migrated, the Duimp on the Single Window. The declaration is instructed by the documents of art. 18 of IN 680/2006: the bill of lading or equivalent document (waived where the operation is covered by electronic CE or e-AWB, as amended by IN 2.193/2024), the commercial invoice signed by the exporter and the cargo packing list, where applicable — plus the documents required by international agreements or specific legislation. A divergence between what is declared and what is documented is the most common source of a demand: an unsigned invoice, a generic description, a value that does not reconcile with the exchange contract.

2. Parametrization

Once the declaration is registered, it undergoes automated fiscal risk-management analysis and is selected for one of the four verification channels of art. 21 — green, yellow, red or grey. It is parametrization that defines how much human intervention the cargo will receive (the next section breaks down the channels).

3. Customs verification

Depending on the channel, the declaration undergoes a documentary examination, a physical inspection of the goods or both. It is in this phase that the Tax Auditor may formalize demands — and it is the response to (or the challenge of) them that determines the speed of the rest of the flow.

4. Clearance

Once verification is concluded, art. 48 of IN 680/2006 requires the goods to be cleared immediately. In the green channel, not even that depends on an officer: clearance is automatic, processed by the system itself (art. 48, §3). With clearance recorded, the release of the cargo to the importer is authorized.

How long it takes — official data only

A honest yardstick belongs here, because the internet is full of invented deadlines. The only official times are those of the Customs Balance of the Federal Revenue Service:

In the same report, 93.82% of declarations were cleared in under 24 hours in 2024 — and the official fluidity target in the green channel is clearance within 24 running hours of registration. Two warnings follow from these figures. First: there is no official time published for the yellow or red channel — distrust anyone who promises “red channel in X days”. Second: the low average hides the long tail — when the cargo falls into a demand or into the grey channel, the clock shifts from hours to weeks or months. It is that tail the next sections address.

The four parametrization channels — and what each one means

Parametrization is the heart of customs risk management. Art. 21 of IN 680/2006, as amended by RFB IN 1.986/2020, defines what happens in each channel:

Why your cargo falls into a channel

Selection is not a lottery. §1 of art. 21 lists the risk-management criteria: tax regularity of the importer, habituality in imports, nature, volume and value of the operation, taxes involved, origin, provenance and destination of the goods, the tax treatment claimed, characteristics of the goods, operational and economic-financial capacity and occurrences in other operations. In plain terms: a clean record and consistent registration reduce selection; a new importer, a sensitive tariff code, a benefit claimed and past divergences increase it. And note §2: even a declaration already selected for green may be redirected to another channel if indications of irregularity emerge.

The AEO effect — the figure that ends the discussion

For recurring operations, the most eloquent official number in the 2024 Customs Balance is that of the AEO (Authorized Economic Operator) program. In December 2024, AEO-Compliance importers had only 0.51% selection for verification channels — 99.49% of cargo straight into green —, against 3.50% for the non-certified. On speed, in the same month: 1h42 (AEO) against 27h19 in the sea mode; 55 minutes against 18h27 in air. And the AEO-Compliance Level 2 may obtain early release of the goods before verification is concluded (IN 680, art. 47, IX, added by IN 1.927/2020). For those who import frequently, it is the structural investment with the most direct return on clearance time.

The green channel is no shield: customs review

A final warning: clearance is not a discharge. The STJ held that customs review is possible for a declaration submitted to any parametrization channel — including green: automatic clearance does not amount to a definitive ratification of what was declared (STJ, official news of 01/26/2022, citing REsp 1.201.845 as precedent). The tax authority may revisit classification, valuation and taxes after release, within the statute-of-limitations period. Sailing through green speeds up logistics — it does not close the tax risk of the operation.

When clearance stalls — demands, the grey channel and the abandonment clock

Tax demand in the course of the procedure

The most common stall is the tax demand of art. 42 of IN 680/2006, recorded on Siscomex in the course of verification — a tax difference flagged by the Tax Auditor, a documentary doubt, a reclassification of the tariff code. The importer has two ways out. The first: meet the demand (or pay the credit required), regardless of any administrative proceeding (§1). The second: state its non-conformity — in which case the credit is formalized by an infraction notice issued within 8 days (§2, as amended by IN 1.813/2018), opening the path of challenge.

The point the company’s treasury needs to know is in the paragraphs of art. 48. Under §8, clearance is conditioned on full payment of the credit assessed — an installment plan does not release the cargo. But, under §9, once the infraction notice is challenged, the importer may request clearance against a guarantee: a cash deposit, a bank guarantee or customs insurance in the amount demanded. In other words: the charge can be disputed without leaving the goods stopped at the port — the amount is secured and the cargo goes out.

The grey channel today: 16 days of investigation + the procedure of IN 1.986/2020

The grey channel is a different order of problem: there the hypothesis under investigation is fraud — documentary falsity, underinvoicing, concealment of the real acquirer (fraudulent interposition). The current regime has two timelines. First, still during verification, art. 41-B of IN 680/2006 (added by IN 1.986/2020) gives the Tax Auditor 16 days, counted from the distribution of the declaration, to investigate the indicative elements of fraud — note: it is a deadline to investigate indications, not a deadline to conclude the procedure. Second: where there are indications justifying retention, the Inspection Procedure for Combating Customs Fraud of RFB IN 1.986/2020 is instituted, with notice of the Retention Term given to the importer.

The deadlines of that procedure are strict: 60 days counted from the notice, extendable once, by another 60, in justified situations (art. 11). Once the deadline lapses without conclusion, the goods must be released, without prejudice to the continuation of the inspection (art. 16). And there is an escape valve before that: early release against a guarantee — a cash deposit, a bank guarantee or insurance —, with the amount of the guarantee set by the inspection within 5 business days (art. 12). If the fraud is confirmed, the consequences are severe (art. 5): a forfeiture penalty on the goods or a fine equal to the customs value, tax assessments, administrative sanctions, a representation for disqualification of the CNPJ and a fiscal representation for criminal purposes — plus the presumption of fraudulent interposition where the importer does not prove the origin and availability of the funds employed (DL 1.455/1976, art. 23, §2).

Mind the right rule. Much of the material available online still cites RFB IN 228/2002 and RFB IN 1.169/2011 — and the old retention deadline of 90 days extendable by another 90 — as the grey-channel regime. Those rules were revoked by RFB IN 1.986/2020 (art. 29), in force since 12/01/2020. The current regime is the one described above: 60 + 60 days of maximum retention, mandatory release on expiry and a guarantee as the route to early release. A petition or opinion based on the “90+90” has been out of date for more than five years.

The abandonment clock — when inertia costs the cargo

While the importer hesitates, a little-known clock runs: that of abandonment. Under art. 23, II, of Decree-Law 1.455/1976, goods are deemed abandoned — damage to the Treasury, punishable by forfeiture (§1) — where they remain for 90 days after unloading without registration of the procedure, or 60 days counted from the interruption of the procedure by act or omission of the importer. And IN 680/2006 (art. 43) requires that deadline to be counted precisely from the interruption to meet a demand. Ignoring a demand, therefore, does not freeze the problem: it converts it, within 60 days, into a risk of losing the goods.

Forfeiture has a defense — and it is not at CARF

Since Law 14.651/2023, the forfeiture penalty has a double administrative instance: a challenge and, if the decision is unfavorable, a voluntary appeal within 20 days, judged by the CEJUL — Customs Penalties Adjudication Center (MF Ordinance 1.005/2023), with national jurisdiction and independence from the assessing authority. It is worth noting so as not to knock on the wrong door: forfeiture is not judged by CARF — customs penalty litigation has its own track. And there is a recent reinforcement from the STJ for proceedings that sit on the shelf: under repetitive Theme 1.293 (2025), a customs infraction of a non-tax nature stalled for more than 3 years in the administrative proceeding is subject to intercurrent prescription (Law 9.873/1999, art. 1, §1).

The importer’s rights: what the tax authority may — and may not — do

Is there a deadline for the tax authority to conclude the procedure?

The honest answer: IN 680/2006 sets no general deadline for concluding the customs verification. What exists is a case-law construction that fills the gap: the application of art. 4 of Decree 70.235/1972 — which requires the officer to perform the procedural acts within 8 days, unless otherwise provided — as a maximum parameter for the procedure. A Federal Court decision in São Paulo, in March 2025, reaffirmed that 8-day deadline for clearance. It is a recurring thesis in a writ of mandamus against unjustified delay — but it must be presented for what it is: a case-by-case case-law application, and not an express deadline of the customs rule. Whoever invokes it as the “legal deadline of IN 680” weakens its own petition.

Writ of mandamus — with an injunction possible

The writ of mandamus is the standard instrument against retention without basis: cargo stopped without a formalized demand, retention beyond the deadlines of IN 1.986/2020, refusal of clearance even with the guarantee of art. 48, §9 offered, conditions without legal basis. And a historical obstacle fell: in ADI 4.296 (judged on 06/09/2021), the STF declared unconstitutional the prohibition of an injunction in a writ of mandamus for the delivery of goods coming from abroad (art. 7, §2, of Law 12.016/2009). An injunction to release imported cargo is legally possible — which restores to the writ of mandamus the usefulness that customs litigation demands: speed.

Precedent 323 × Theme 1042 — the map of retention

Here lies the most common mistake in customs petitions. Precedent 323 of the STF (Plenary Session of 12/13/1963) states: “The seizure of goods as a coercive means to compel the payment of taxes is inadmissible.” It is the cornerstone of the doctrine of political sanctions — but it is no silver bullet in the clearance procedure. The STF itself set the limit in Theme 1042 of general repercussion (RE 1.090.591, judged in 2020): “It is constitutional to condition customs clearance on the collection of a tax difference assessed by the tax authority’s arbitration.” Retention in the course of the procedure, with a formalized demand — the typical case of underinvoicing with arbitration of the value —, is a requirement of the procedure, not a political sanction. The STJ follows the same logic in the consolidated line of both Public-Law Panels on antidumping duties: retaining the goods until payment does not violate Precedent 323, because payment is a requirement for perfecting the import — there is no seizure, but rather a refusal to advance the procedure.

Where Precedent 323 remains fully alive: seizure of goods outside the procedure as a form of indirect collection of a tax already assessed; retention without a formalized demand to justify it; and retention after the deadlines of IN 1.986/2020 have lapsed, when release is mandatory by force of art. 16. Discussions of valuation and arbitration, moreover, connect directly with transfer pricing and customs valuation — the price practiced between related parties is exactly what the inspection tests in the grey channel.

ICMS on clearance — Precedent 48 (binding)

On the tax chapter, one expectation needs calibrating. Binding Precedent 48 of the STF (approved on 05/27/2015, conversion of Precedent 661) states: “On the entry of goods imported from abroad, the levy of ICMS on the occasion of customs clearance is legitimate.” In other words: the State may demand the import ICMS at the moment of clearance — the precedent legitimizes the levy at that instant, not the opposite. There is no viable thesis to push the import ICMS to after release; the correct planning is to treat it as a clearance cost in the operation’s cash flow.

Siscomex fee — Theme 1085 and the refund of the excess

As for the Siscomex utilization fee, paid on each declaration registered, there is money to recover. In Theme 1085 of general repercussion (RE 1.258.934, Rapporteur Justice Dias Toffoli, 2020), the STF held that the excessive increase of a fee by an infralegal act, based on a defective legislative delegation, is unconstitutional — the Executive may only update the values set by law by a percentage no higher than the official monetary-correction indices. That was the case of MF Ordinance 257/2011, which raised the fee well beyond inflation: the excess paid is refundable. Since 06/01/2021 the values recomposed by the IPCA are in force — BRL 115.67 per declaration and BRL 38.56 per addition, with decreasing values in the following bands (ME Ordinance 4.131/2021 and RFB IN 2.024/2021). For high-volume importers, reviewing what was paid under the increased values connects the clearance procedure to the recovery of tax credits.

The cost of each day stopped — and the DI → Duimp transition

The compound cost of retained cargo

There is no single official table for the “cost of delay” — any round number here would be an invention. But the mechanics are known, in three layers: the storage at the bonded facility, charged in progressive periods per the schedule of each terminal or airport; the demurrage (container detention charge), a contractual charge from the carrier that triggers when the free time ends — and free time rarely survives a retention; and the immobilized working capital — goods paid for, and nothing turning in inventory, with a risk of a stock-out at the point of sale. In the sea mode, the outlay also includes the AFRMM — 8% on freight in long-haul shipping (Law 10.893/2004, art. 6, as amended by Law 14.301/2022), whose taxable event, since Complementary Law 227/2026, is deemed to occur on the date of registration of the declaration.

The urgency yardstick is temporal: a healthy operation clears in hours (the official 24-hour target in the green channel); a poorly managed demand consumes weeks; the grey channel may retain for up to 60 + 60 days. Each rung multiplies the three cost layers — the decision between paying, guaranteeing or litigating is, above all, a cash-flow calculation against a legal deadline.

Duimp and the Single Window: the procedure is changing system

The infrastructure of the clearance procedure is undergoing its greatest transition since the creation of Siscomex. The Duimp (Single Import Declaration), processed on the Foreign Trade Single Window, progressively replaces the DI — and the change, which in 2024 was still marginal (2,956 Duimps against 2.86 million DIs), became mandatory in waves throughout 2026. For the importer, it is not just a change of screen: the licensing flow (LPCO), the product catalog and the risk-management logic all change — and operating on the wrong system on the wrong date means being unable to register the operation. The detail of the new model is in the DUIMP cluster.

DI → Duimp schedule (consulted in July 2026 — moving target). Per the official schedule of the Siscomex Management Committee: final phase of Duimp switch-on on 06/08/2026; DI switch-off in waves, with milestones on 08/31/2026 (includes air-cargo and bulk-sea operations) and 12/01/2026 (final phase — nationalization of special warehouses and remaining operations). The schedule itself reserves that the dates depend on validation with the private sector and has already been revised more than once in 2026 — confirm the official pages at gov.br/siscomex before any operational decision.

And the Tax Reform at the gate of entry

Finally, clearance is also the moment when the import taxes converge — and that package is changing. With Complementary Law 214/2025, the CBS and the IBS come to be levied on imports as well throughout the transition, and the Selective Tax reaches imported goods falling within its hypotheses. Operations in incentivized areas follow their own logic — the treatment of the Manaus Free Trade Zone under the Reform is the most relevant example for those who nationalize through Manaus. Whoever designs an import operation from 2026 onward must model clearance with both regimes on the spreadsheet.

Illustrative case — grey channel, retained cargo and a guarantee

Illustrative case. The situation is illustrative and does not correspond to a specific client — it serves to show the TaxUp team’s working method.

The context

An importer of consumer goods registers the DI for a sizeable lot and is caught by selection for the grey channel: the inspection suspects underinvoicing — the declared price is said to be below the market price for identical goods. Once the procedure of IN 1.986/2020 is instituted, the company receives the Retention Term. The containers sit at the port, the free time expires, the storage enters a progressive band, and the commercial area watches the season’s sales window shrink week by week.

The team’s reading

The TaxUp team organizes the problem into two parallel tracks. The first is legality control: the regularity of the Retention Term, the framing of the indications pointed out and, above all, the calendar — the 60 days from the notice, the existence (or not) of a concrete justification for the extension and the cut-off date on which release becomes mandatory under art. 16. The second is immediate release: since the valuation dispute will take months and the cargo cannot wait, the rational route is the guarantee of art. 12 — a request for early release, with the amount set by the inspection within 5 business days, made viable by customs insurance so as not to drain the cash.

The execution

Once the request is filed, the guarantee is accepted and the cargo is cleared — inventory starts turning again while the procedure continues over papers, not over containers. On the merits track, the defense gathers proof of the price practiced: contracts, import history, international quotations for the period and a demonstration of the origin of the funds, neutralizing the presumption of fraudulent interposition of art. 23, §2, of DL 1.455/1976. And the calendar remains monitored: if the maximum deadline lapses without conclusion, the next step would be a writ of mandamus — with an injunction possible since ADI 4.296 — to enforce the mandatory release. That is the method: separate the logistical urgency (release the cargo) from the legal dispute (prove the value).

How the firm acts — before, during and after the procedure

Before: reducing the chance of falling into a channel

The best customs litigation is the one that does not happen. The TaxUp team’s preventive work addresses the criteria that art. 21, §1, of IN 680/2006 uses to select cargo: registration and documentary consistency (the documents of art. 18 without divergences), defensible tax classification and valuation before registration, tax regularity and a compliance track record. For recurring operations, the structural path is preparation for the AEO certification. The full context of the customs front is in the Customs Law pillar.

During: a fast response with the right tool

When the cargo stalls, the first hour is for diagnosis: what exactly is the stall — a demand under art. 42, a pending physical inspection, a grey channel with a Retention Term? Each hypothesis has its tool: a technical response to the demand or a statement of non-conformity; clearance against a guarantee (art. 48, §9, of IN 680, or art. 12 of IN 1.986/2020) to separate release from the dispute; and a writ of mandamus with an injunction request when the retention loses its basis — no formalized demand, beyond the deadlines, or with an undue refusal of the guarantee. What the team does not do is take a rhetorical shortcut: invoking Precedent 323 against the legitimate retention of Theme 1042 only burns credibility before the court.

After: review, recovery and defense

The post-clearance stage has two fronts. On the defensive side, monitoring customs reviews (possible in any channel, as seen) and defending against infraction notices and forfeiture procedures — including before the CEJUL, in the double instance of Law 14.651/2023. On the active side, recovering what was overpaid at the very gate of entry: the excess of the Siscomex fee recognized in Theme 1085/STF and the review of bases and classifications that generated undue tax. The design is sector-specific: manufacturing and consumer goods concentrate the risks of valuation and tariff classification; agribusiness lives with the AFRMM and bulk logistics; and multinationals in Brazil add to the procedure the layer of prices between related parties — where customs valuation and transfer pricing must tell the same story.