Drawback: what it is and how it works.
The three modalities, the deadlines of the concessory act — and the watershed of CL 214/2025.

What drawback is — and why it exists

Drawback is the special customs regime that relieves the inputs of exported goods: the taxes that would fall on the import or on the domestic-market acquisition of goods used in the industrialization of products to be exported are suspended, exempted or, residually, refunded. The name comes from the English — to draw back — and the premise is universal in international trade: a country that embeds tax in the exported product loses competitiveness; hence, you do not export tax.

The normative matrix in four layers

The base of the regime is art. 78 of Decree-Law 37/1966, which designs the three modalities — refund (item I), suspension (item II) and exemption for equivalent goods (item III) — and whose incentives were reinstated by Law 8.402/1992. The second layer is the integrated drawback, which extended the benefit also to purchases on the domestic market: Law 11.945/2009 (art. 12) for the suspension and Law 12.350/2010 (art. 31) for the exemption. The third is the Customs Regulation (Decree 6.759/2009), which governs deadlines and default (arts. 388, 390 and 397 to 399). The fourth is the operational plane: Secex Ordinance 44/2020, a consolidated text that governs suspension and exemption, combined with Joint Ordinance SECINT/RFB 76/2022 — in force since 10/01/2022 —, which addresses the granting, the management and the control of the regime. For a pocket definition, the drawback glossary entry sums up the essentials in one paragraph.

Who can use it

The regime is restricted to legal entities enabled by Secex (Law 11.945/2009, art. 12, §2), with an exporter profile in Siscomex and proven tax regularity, under the terms of Joint Ordinance SECINT/RFB 76/2022. The classic profile is the industry that imports or buys inputs to transform and export — but the reach is broader: the law includes the activities of repair, breeding, cultivation and extractivism (art. 12, §1, I), which opens the regime to agribusiness; the intermediate manufacturer, which industrializes an intermediate product supplied directly to the exporting manufacturer (art. 12, §1, III); and the industrialization of vessels sold on the domestic market, treated as export by Law 8.402/92 (art. 1, §2). Since Secex Ordinance 295/2024, the small producer that exports indirectly, through an export trading company, accesses the exemption drawback by presenting only the sales invoices to the trading company — with no need for customs-declaration data.

The size of the program

Drawback is not a niche benefit — it is the fiscal backbone of Brazilian industrial export. The official MDIC figures size the regime:

A fifth of everything Brazil exports already leaves covered by the regime. The business reading is direct: if your company industrializes and exports — or supplies whoever exports — and still pays full tax on the entry of inputs, the competitor that uses drawback operates with a structurally lower cost.

The three modalities: suspension, exemption and refund

Art. 78 of DL 37/66 organizes drawback into three modalities, and the choice among them is, above all, a cash decision: it depends on whether the export is in the future (suspension), in the past (exemption) or whether the taxes have already been paid on the input of an exported product (refund).

Suspension — for those about to export

In the integrated suspension drawback (Law 11.945/2009, art. 12), the company imports or buys on the domestic market with the taxes suspended from entry: II, IPI, PIS/Pasep, Cofins, PIS/Pasep-Import and Cofins-Import are not collected, subject to the commitment to use the goods in the industrialization of a product to be exported. The cash effect is immediate — the relief happens before the export, not after. Proof is made by physical flow: the imported or acquired volume is compared with the exported volume (art. 14, §1), with no requirement to physically track each batch.

Exemption — for those who have already exported

In the integrated exemption drawback (Law 12.350/2010, art. 31), the movement is the reverse: the company that has already exported paying full tax on the inputs earns the right to replenish the stock — to import or buy equivalent goods (same kind, quality and quantity, §4) with exemption from II and a zero rate of IPI, PIS/Pasep, Cofins and PIS/Cofins-Import. The official Siscomex FAQ even allows successive replenishment: the replenished inputs go into new exported products and chain new concessory acts. In practice, the exemption works as an avenue for recovering the tax cost embedded in past exports — a market that most Brazilian exporters simply ignore.

Refund — the residual modality

The refund (DL 37/66, art. 78, I and §1; Customs Regulation, arts. 397 to 399) returns, in the form of a credit for later import, the taxes paid on the import of goods exported after processing. The granting is within the competence of the Federal Revenue — not Secex — and the modality remains formally in force, but with no dedicated flow in Siscomex and practically no use: Secex Ordinance 44/2020 governs only suspension and exemption.

Variations that broaden the reach

Two figures deserve mention. The intermediate drawback allows the manufacturer of an intermediate product — supplied directly to the exporting manufacturer — to operate the regime in its own name (Law 11.945/2009, art. 12, §1, III; Law 12.350/2010, art. 31, §1, II). And the vessel drawback treats as export the sale of a vessel industrialized on the domestic market, with suspension of taxes for up to 7 years (Law 8.402/92, art. 1, §§2 and 3; Secex Ordinance 44/2020, arts. 76 to 78).

What drawback suspends or exempts — tax by tax

The question the CFO asks — how much stops being levied? — has no single percentage: the saving is the sum of the taxes that stop burdening each input, and it varies by NCM, by origin (import or domestic market) and by modality. There is no official percentage of “typical saving” published by the government — be wary of anyone who promises one. What exists is the stacking, tax by tax:

ICMS: the state piece — and the trap of Agreement 48/17

No federal law suspends ICMS in drawback — the state relief depends on CONFAZ. The ICMS Agreement 27/90 exempts ICMS on the import carried out under integrated suspension drawback, conditioned on the use of the goods in a product to be exported and on the proof of the effective export. Two practical traps: first, ICMS Agreement 48/17 excluded from the exemption the operations in which importer and exporter are in different states — at the state’s discretion, export by another establishment of the same company is allowed, provided it is in the same state; second, the agreement does not cover acquisitions on the domestic market nor the exemption modality — in the stock replenishment, ICMS-import remains due. This difference weighs on the choice of modality and requires reading the RICMS of each state involved.

The 2025 novelty: drawback on services

Since 07/29/2025, the suspension drawback also reaches services linked directly and exclusively to export — transport, cargo insurance, customs clearance, storage and handling —, with suspension of PIS/Pasep, Cofins and PIS/Cofins-Import. The provision was born in Law 14.440/2022 (art. 12-A of Law 11.945/2009), was broadened by CL 216/2025 (Acredita Exportação Program) and made operational by Decree 12.565/2025, by Joint Ordinance SECEX/RFB 3/2025 and by Secex Ordinance 418/2025 — which lists the eligible services by NBS (Annex I) and bars the benefit to Simples Nacional providers and to concessory acts of the intermediate manufacturer. The potential impact is large: according to an OECD figure cited by the MDIC, services account for about 40% of the value added in Brazilian manufactured exports.

What is left out

The integrated drawback does not reach the credit situations of items IV to IX of art. 3 of Law 10.637/2002, III to IX of art. 3 of Law 10.833/2003 and III to V of art. 15 of Law 10.865/2004 (Law 11.945/2009, art. 12, §1, II; Law 12.350/2010, art. 31, §2) — in practice, items such as electricity, rents and depreciation are outside the regime. The benefit relieves the input incorporated or consumed in the industrialization, not the plant’s cost structure.

How to apply: the concessory act on the Single Portal, step by step

The instrument that materializes drawback is the concessory act — the electronic document in which the company declares what it will import or acquire, what it will export and within what deadline. The entire flow runs on the Single Foreign Trade Portal (portalunico.siscomex.gov.br), in the Drawback Suspension and Drawback Exemption modules, under review by DECEX/Suext.

1. Prior enabling. The legal entity must be enabled to operate the regime (Law 11.945/2009, art. 12, §2), with an exporter profile in Siscomex and tax regularity — a valid CND or CPD-EN —, under the terms of Joint Ordinance SECINT/RFB 76/2022.
2. Registration of the act. In the proper module, the company specifies the NCM, quantities and values of the inputs to import or acquire and of the products to export, with the technical coefficient that links them to one another.
3. Documentary instruction with the act. Since Secex Ordinance 486/2026 (arts. 11-A and 59-A of Ordinance 44/2020), the instruction documentation — technical report on the production process, sizing spreadsheet, corporate proof — is attached by electronic dossier at the moment of the request. The effect was immediate: according to the MDIC, the analysis time of the act dropped from up to 60 days to less than 30 days.
4. Approval and operation. Once the act is approved, imports are linked to the act number in the import declarations, and domestic purchases in the invoices. The balance of the act is consumed as entries and exports are recorded.
5. Deadline management. Changes to the act — inclusion of NCM, adjustment of quantities, extension — can only be proposed during the term of validity. An expired act cannot be changed; the default is administered (next section).

The official operational guide is the Siscomex Drawback Suspension Manual, 6th edition, approved by Secex Ordinance 487/2026 and in force since 04/27/2026 — earlier versions, such as the 5th edition of 2025, are superseded.

The deadlines of the concessory act

A historical aside: in 2025, Provisional Measure 1.309 briefly allowed an exceptional extension of concessory acts for exporters hit by the American tariff hike, but it lapsed without conversion into law — and Secex Ordinance 430/2025, which made it operational, was revoked by Secex Ordinance 460/2025; a closed episode, not to be invoked as a rule in force.

Proof and default — the 30-day rule

How the commitment is proven

The heart of drawback is the proof of the input-export link. In the suspension, proof is by physical flow (Law 11.945/2009, art. 14, §1): the imported or acquired volume is compared with the exported volume, taking the exchange-rate variation into account. Operationally, the write-off happens when the exporter informs the act number on the DU-E, with the regime framework code — the system deducts the balance automatically. In indirect exports, the sales invoices to the export trading company apply; and the technical report by the person responsible for the production process supports the declared input-product coefficient.

Administrative case law demands rigor precisely at this link. In a decision reported in June 2026 (Ruling 3004-000.167, 4th Extraordinary Panel of the 3rd Section), CARF upheld an assessment because the exports were not expressly linked to the concessory act — without the framework code, the export record does not prove the regime, even if the goods left the country. In parallel, there is a consolidated line of defense that distinguishes the merely formal error — which does not de-characterize the regime when material compliance is proven — from material non-compliance. The difference between an upheld assessment and a cancelled one usually lies in the quality of the evidentiary dossier, not in the thesis.

Did not export on time? The 30-day exits

Once the deadline of the act has expired without the full committed export, the window of art. 390, I, of the Customs Regulation opens: within 30 days, the beneficiary must adopt one of these measures regarding the unused goods — (a) return them abroad; (b) destroy them under customs control, at its own expense; (c) allocate them to domestic consumption, collecting the suspended taxes with the legal surcharges; or (d) deliver them to the National Treasury. Secex Ordinance 44/2020 (art. 37) adds a fifth avenue: the transfer to another special customs regime. The same procedure applies to goods that were not used in the production process, even if the full export took place (art. 38). Whoever lets the 30 days pass in silence hands the tax authority the classic trigger of the assessment: taxes with an ex officio penalty and interest, and the discussion moves to litigation.

What the STJ and CARF have already settled

Three case-law markers protect — or corner — the beneficiary:

• Penalty and interest only from the 31st day. The 1st Section of the STJ settled, in EREsp 1.580.304/RS (Rapporteur Justice Sérgio Kukina, judged on 09/16/2021, Bulletin 710), that in the suspension drawback the penalty and default interest are levied only from the 31st day of the default on the commitment to export — not from the date of the registration of the import declaration. Whoever collects the taxes within the 30 days pays without a default penalty.
• Lapse counts from the end of the 30 days. CARF Precedent 156 (2019, binding on the federal tax administration since Ordinance ME 410/2020) establishes that the 5-year lapse period to assess the suspended taxes counts from the first day of the fiscal year following the close of the 30 days after the deadline of the committed exports (art. 173, I, of the National Tax Code).
• Certificate of clearance only at the granting. Precedent 569 of the STJ bars the requirement of a new negative debt certificate at customs clearance when the clearance of federal taxes was already proven at the granting of the drawback — a recurring myth is to treat it as an ICMS precedent; it is not.

Drawback and the Tax Reform — what CL 214/2025 changes

The CL 214/2025 dedicated an entire section to special customs regimes (arts. 84 to 98) — and the treatment given to drawback is a watershed that requires a decision before the turn of the CBS.

What survives: the suspension (art. 90)

Art. 90 guarantees the suspension of IBS and CBS on the import of goods submitted to a processing regime — reaching also the goods acquired on the domestic market (§2) and referring to the regulation the requirements of the suspension drawback for goods and services (§3). The current logic of default was replicated: goods not used in accordance with the act pay IBS/CBS, with penalty and interest if the allocation to the domestic market occurs after 30 days of the deadline set for the export (§§4 and 5). Recof is expressly treated as a processing regime (§6).

What dies for the new taxes: exemption and refund (art. 91)

Art. 91 is terse and definitive: “The exemption and refund modalities of the special customs regime of drawback do not apply to IBS and CBS.” Under the new system, only the suspension will have an equivalent for IBS and CBS. Exemption and refund continue to exist — but only for the Import Tax, which was left out of the reform, and, during the transition, for the taxes being phased out. Whoever operates stock replenishment today via the exemption drawback needs to redesign the operation for the suspension model before the CBS takes the place of PIS/Cofins.

The transition calendar — and the new enabling

The impact is spread over time. In 2027, the CBS takes over and PIS/Cofins(-Import) are phased out — the CBS rate is not yet set in law; the 26.5% figure that circulates in the debate is only the reference ceiling-trigger of the IBS+CBS system, a review parameter, not a rate in force. In the same year, the IPI has its rates reduced to zero — except for products with incentivized industrialization in the Manaus Free Trade Zone —, but the tax subsists: what is phased out in 2033 are ICMS and ISS, with the migration of ICMS to IBS between 2029 and 2033 — a trajectory in which ICMS Agreement 27/90 gradually loses its object. Neighboring pieces of the reform, such as the Selective Tax, follow their own calendar and rules.

On the operational plane, Decree 12.955/2026 (04/29/2026, CBS Regulation) redesigned the entry gate: the suspension of II and AFRMM remains with Secex, but the suspension of IBS/CBS now requires enabling by a joint act of the Federal Revenue and the IBS Steering Committee (CGIBS), with requirements of tax regularity and a computerized stock-control system — a design already criticized by specialists for bureaucratizing access for smaller companies. In plain terms: post-2027 drawback will have two keys, and whoever does not provide the second one in time operates at half capacity.

Illustrative case — an exporting industry that paid everything on entry

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

A consumer-goods industry imports inputs and packaging, industrializes in Brazil and exports about 40% of its output. Out of unfamiliarity with the regime — and out of fear of the formal commitment to export —, it always collected full tax on entry: II, IPI, PIS/Cofins-Import, AFRMM and ICMS. The tax cost of the inputs was passed on to the price, eroding the margin precisely on the exported lines, where international competition does not allow pass-through.

The team’s reading

The diagnosis identified three fronts. For the future flow, the design of a suspension drawback act covering the inputs of the exported lines, with a technical coefficient backed by a report on the production process — and, on the import, the ICMS exemption of ICMS Agreement 27/90, given the condition that importer and exporter are in the same state. For the past, the survey of recent exports opened the avenue of the exemption drawback: replenishment of stock of equivalent goods with II exempt and IPI/PIS/Cofins at zero, recovering part of the tax cost already incurred. And, for 2027 onward, the migration plan: since the company would come to depend on the suspension modality (the only one with an IBS/CBS equivalent under CL 214/2025), the calendar included the dual enabling RFB + CGIBS designed by Decree 12.955/2026.

The execution

The work followed the order that protects the client: first the enabling and the registration of the act with a complete electronic dossier — report, spreadsheet, corporate proof —, taking advantage of the accelerated procedure of Secex Ordinance 486/2026; then, the implementation of a monthly routine to monitor the balance of the concessory act, so that no deadline reached its end without a proven export or a measure registered within the 30 days. The saving was not promised as a magic percentage: it was calculated NCM by NCM, as the sum of the taxes that stopped being levied on each input — and revised at each change in the production mix.

How the firm acts — from qualification to defense

Qualification and design of the operation

The starting point for the TaxUp team is the question that precedes the form: which modality serves your operation? Suspension for the future flow, exemption to replenish the stock of exports already made — or both, combined. The diagnosis maps the eligible inputs by NCM, the defensible technical coefficient, the coverage of state ICMS (ICMS Agreement 27/90 and the trap of different states under Agreement 48/17) and, since 2025, the inclusion of export services — freight, insurance, clearance and storage — within the perimeter of the benefit.

Management of the concessory act and proof

Once the act is approved, the work that avoids the assessment begins: a calendar of deadlines and extensions (registered by the last day of the original deadline), correct linking of the act on each DU-E with the framework code, updated technical reports and monthly monitoring of the balance — because the report on the concessory act is administered throughout its term of validity, not on the eve of expiry. For multinational groups, the design speaks to customs valuation and transfer pricing: the price of the input imported from a related party affects simultaneously the base of the suspended taxes and the transfer-pricing documentation — treating the two planes separately is a recipe for inconsistency.

Litigation and regularization

When the commitment to export fails, the difference between a managed problem and an assessment lies in the 30 days of art. 390 of the Customs Regulation. The firm conducts the regularization — nationalization with collection, return, destruction under customs control or transfer of regime — and, in litigation, sustains the consolidated markers: penalty and interest only from the 31st day (EREsp 1.580.304/RS, Rapporteur Justice Sérgio Kukina), lapse counted in the form of CARF Precedent 156 and the distinction between formal error and material non-compliance in the proof of the input-export link.

The migration to the post-2027

For multinationals and exporting industries, the structural decision of this window is the migration to the design of CL 214/2025: to redesign operations today supported by the exemption modality for the suspension model — the only one with an equivalent for IBS and CBS —, to provide the dual enabling RFB + CGIBS of Decree 12.955/2026 and to reprice the cash flow of the export chain in the environment of the new taxes. Whoever treats drawback as a matter for the customs broker will discover, in 2027, that it has become a matter of tax strategy.