This country-specific Q&A provides an overview of International Trade laws and regulations applicable in Brazil.
Brazil is traditionally an active member of the multilateral trade system. It has been a founding member of both the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) since July 30, 1948 and the World Trade Organization (WTO) since January 1, 1995. Brazil actively participates in the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) and engages in various WTO negotiations, working groups, and initiatives. Brazil’s commitment to the multilateral trade system is exemplified by the career of Roberto Azevêdo, a Brazilian diplomat and former Director-General of the WTO. Before assuming his role at the WTO (from 2013 to 2020), Azevêdo was a member of the Brazilian mission in Geneva, representing Brazil within the organization. Luiz Olavo Baptista was another landmark, being the first (and thus far the only) national of Brazil to be appointed as Appellate Body member (from 2001 to 2009), having served as Chair in 2007-2008. Brazil’s involvement in the WTO has consistently been viewed as a strategic priority for the country and highly acknowledged by the other member states. Historically, Brazil has favored the multilateral trade system over regional or bilateral agreements. For many years, Brazil believed that developing countries had more negotiating leverage within the WTO compared to bilateral or regional negotiations. However, in recent years, Brazil has become more open to the latter, as evidenced by Brazil’s successful conclusion of the political negotiations for the Mercosur-European Union agreement.
Furthermore, Brazil is not a party to the recently approved WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies to this date.
Brazil submitted its application to accede to the Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft in June 2022, providing its proposed tariff commitments. For the remaining agreements, there is no documented evidence that Brazil is actively seeking to accede in the foreseeable future. In fact, while Brazil has previously engaged in acceding to the Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft and the Government Procurement Agreement, they do not seem to be yet a priority by the recently elected government.
Brazil is actively participating in the E-commerce Joint Initiative and is involved in several informal working groups, including Investment Facilitation for Development, Micro, Small, and Medium-sized Enterprises (MSMEs), and Domestic Regulation of Trade in Services. Brazil is also engaged in the Trade and Environmental Sustainability Initiative.
Over the last five years, Brazil has actively participated in the WTO dispute settlement system, being involved in a total of 58 cases. In the majority of these cases, which accounts for 51 instances, Brazil’s participation was in the capacity of a third party. These cases spanned various thematic areas, including trade defense, additional duties and tariff measures, origin regulations, and matters related to intellectual property. The disputes covered a wide array of industries, ranging from agriculture products to steel and aluminum, raw materials, goods, technology, and pharmaceuticals. In addition to its role as a third party, Brazil also assumed a role as a party to the dispute in seven instances. In four of these cases, Brazil acted as complainant, while in three other cases, Brazil was the respondent. Notable examples include Brazil’s position as respondent in DS472 (EU) Brazil — Certain Measures Concerning Taxation and Charges, and DS497 (Japan) Brazil — Certain Measures Concerning Taxation and Charges. Brazil is also a respondent on the ongoing DS596 (Peru) Brazil – Measures concerning the Importation of PET Film, in consultations since July 2020 and in which a panel was not established. On the other hand, Brazil served as complainant in DS522: Canada — Measures Concerning Trade in Commercial Aircraft. Furthermore, in the consultation phase, just to name an example, Brazil has an ongoing dispute with the EU in DS607 regarding Measures Concerning the Importation of Certain Poultry Meat Preparations from Brazil, initiated in November 2021.
Brazilian authorities have expressed deep concern over a paralysis of the WTO Appellate Body. With the Appellate Body non-functional since December 2019 due to its ongoing vacancies, Brazil’s trade claims have suffered, as they have been exploited by countries defeated in disputes, through tactics known as “empty appeals.” The disruption in the dispute settlement mechanism has had a significant impact on Brazil’s interests, as it enables losing parties in trade disputes to postpone the consequences of recommendations from the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). The situation has affected the country’s trade in various sectors, such as agriculture products, steel, aluminum, raw materials, goods, technology, and pharmaceuticals. Notably, Brazil has won disputes, such as the one against the United States on cotton, but the inability to enforce judgments has allowed the United States to delay compliance. This undermines the effectiveness of the WTO’s multilateral trading system and adversely affects Brazil’s economic interests. In response to the impasse, Brazilian authorities are actively working to reinstate the Appellate Body (AB) and resolve the situation. The government emphasizes the importance of a fully operational dispute settlement system to international trade and has been engaged in discussions in Geneva to reform the WTO’s dispute resolution mechanism. It aims to seek a balanced solution that can overcome the current deadlock. Although Brazil is still hoping to see the AB blockage solved, it has engaged in the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) initiative. MPIA provides an alternative avenue for dispute resolution and has become more relevant as a result. It is essential to clarify that Brazil’s involvement in the MPIA does not signify a withdrawal from the AB or the DSB in general. Brazil has also taken legislative action to address the situation. The Brazilian Congress passed Law n. 14,353/2022 – which, in practice and inter alia, authorizes unilateral trade measures against countries involved in unresolved disputes where the Appellate Body is inactive. One of the goals of this law is to enable Brazil to enforce its victories in the WTO. While Brazil continues to pursue international support to rejuvenate the WTO’s effectiveness, the lack of a functional Appellate Body has led to the accumulation of disputes, creating uncertainty in international trade. It has also raised concerns about the prospect of nations acting unilaterally in trade matters, potentially undermining the principles of multilateral trade cooperation that the WTO upholds. The Brazilian government is working to restore the WTO’s capacity to effectively mediate and resolve trade disputes, addressing the current fragmentation in global trade.
As previously addressed in Question 1, Brazil has recently shown an increased commitment to agreements with developed countries. Prior to this shift, Brazil and Mercosur had maintained numerous agreements with other developing countries. Below is a list of FTAs that Brazil and/or Mercosur are party to: • Mercosur ACE 18 – May 27, 1992. • ALADI (Latin American Integration Association) – July 1, 1984. • ACE 14: Brazil – Argentina – December 20, 1990. • ACE 36: Mercosur – Bolivia – May 30, 1997. • ACE 35: Mercosur – Chile – October 1, 1996. • ACE 72: Mercosur – Colombia – December 20, 2017. • ACE 62: Mercosur – Cuba – July 2, 2007. • ACE 59: Mercosur – Colombia – Ecuador – Venezuela -February 1, 2005. • ACE 69: Brazil – Venezuela – October 7, 2014. • ACE 02: Brazil – Uruguay – October 16, 1985. • ACE 58: Mercosur – Peru – January 2, 2006. • ACE 74: Brazil – Paraguay: Automotive Products – August 10, 2020. • ACE 53: Brazil – Mexico – May 2, 2003. • ACE 54: Mercosur – Mexico – January 2006. • ACE 55: Mercosur – Mexico: Automotive Products – January 1, 2003. • Mercosur – Egypt – September 1, 2007. • Mercosur – India – June 1, 2009. • Mercosur – Israel – April 28, 2010. • Mercosur – SACU (Southern African Customs Union) – April 1, 2016. We clarify that, as a Mercosur member, under Article 1 of the Asuncion Treaty and Decision n. 32/00 of Mercosur’s Comon Market Council (CMC), Brazil committed to negotiating and entering FTAs alongside other Mercosur members only. As a consequence, Brazil is bound to engage in joint negotiations of trade agreements with third countries or “extrazone” countries that provide for tariff preferences. In addition to FTAs but on a different note, Brazil has entered into Agreements on Cooperation and Facilitation of Investments (ACFIs) with several countries, including Mozambique, Angola, Malawi, Colombia, Peru, and Chile. These ACFIs represent Brazil’s distinct model of investment agreements, focused on promoting and facilitating investments, and they may encompass provisions related to investment protection, dispute resolution mechanisms, and cooperation across various matters. Brazil holds said agreements with Mozambique, Angola, Malawi, Colombia, Peru, and Chile.
Yes, as part of Mercosur, Brazil is currently engaged in negotiations for several Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with various jurisdictions. These negotiations include: • Mercosur – European Union • Mercosur – Canada • Mercosur – EFTA (European Free Trade Association) • Mercosur – Indonesia • Mercosur – Vietnam • Mercosur – Singapore • Economic-Commercial Expansion Agreement Brazil – Peru • Mercosur – Palestine • Mercosur – Lebanon Brazil’s primary focus is on expediting the ratification and entry into force of the Mercosur-European Union agreement, which has already been politically negotiated. The text of the agreement is under review by the parties. However, Brazil faces a big challenge on this issue, considering that some European countries had expressed that they would not ratify the agreement. Brazil often holds public consultations to gather the private sector’s and civil society’s views on FTAs, such as the ones for Indonesia and Vietnam. Currently, there are ongoing public consultations for FTAs with India and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). As for the other agreements, specific dates for entering into force have not been determined yet. The Brazilian government is actively working on advancing these negotiations, although the timeline for their completion and implementation remains uncertain.
In 2022, Brazil’s external trade relationships, both in exports and imports, were of considerable significance, with a particular weight with China, U.S., Argentina and Europe. According to official trade statistics by the Brazilian government (Comexstat) the five biggest trading partners for Brazil in exports are as follows: Exports 2022 (FOB value): China: Brazil’s largest trading partner in exports. The primary category of exported goods was “Mineral Products” with $90.31 billion, supporting the strength of Brazil’s mining industry. United States: a key export destination, it received a wide range of products, with “Vegetable Products” being a notable category, valued at $71.34 billion. Argentina: another significant destination for various goods. The “Food Industries; Beverages, Alcoholic Liquids, and Vinegars; Tobacco and Manufactured Tobacco Substitutes” category stood out, with a value of $32.98 billion. Netherlands: a vital trade partner for Brazil with a diverse range of goods. The category of “Live Animals and Animal Products” accounted for $25.66 billion in exports. Spain: the fifth-largest export partner, it received various products, with “Common Metals and Their Works” valued at $22.44 billion. In terms of imports, Brazil’s top trading partners as per Comexstat are: Imports 2022 (FOB value): China: The largest source of imports for Brazil. “Chemical or Allied Industries Products” represented a substantial category, amounting to $70.61 billion. United States: a significant supplier covering various categories. Notably, “Machinery, Electrical Equipment, and Their Parts” was valued at $65.48 billion. Argentina: the category “Mineral Products” contributed $51.59 billion in import value. Germany: “Transportation Materials” amounting to $19.69 billion. India: “Common Metals and Their Works” constituted a substantial category, valued at $15.77 billion.
From an international standpoint, the three most pivotal developments impacting Brazil’s trade profile and priorities include the implementation of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) by the European Union, which requires Brazil to align with stringent environmental standards or face potential trade repercussions; the persistent concerns surrounding deforestation, which necessitate robust conservation efforts to preserve trade relations and access to markets; and the expansion of the BRICS group with six new members from January 1st 2024 (namely, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates), which presents both trade opportunities and complexities that require adept navigation to leverage potential benefits and align trade strategies with diverse member priorities. On the domestic front, we highlight the creation of numerous committees within the Chamber of Foreign Trade (CAMEX) to ensure that environmental and social considerations are central to trade policies and negotiations; the growing need for Brazil to balance economic growth with environmental responsibility, particularly in natural resource-based industries, to meet the demands of eco-conscious consumers and trading partners; and the proactive efforts to ensure that sustainability is integrated into trade decisions, offering Brazil a competitive edge in international markets by delivering products with strong environmental and social credentials.
Brazil is currently very focused on environmental issues, both domestically and internationally. Although not specially seeking to expressly address this matter in FTAs, Brazil has domestically put a lot of effort into improving environmental standards for trade purposes. In 2023, notable initiatives and agencies have been established, including the Secretariat of Green Economy, Decarbonization, and Bioindustry under the Ministry of Development, Industry, Trade, and Services (MDIC), the formation of a Working Group on Trade and Sustainability within the Foreign Trade Chamber (Camex), and public consultations engaging civil society on international trade negotiations related to trade and sustainable development. Brazil has also signed memoranda of cooperation with the United States and China, with a focus on sustainability and environmental concerns. Furthermore, Brazil is actively participating in initiatives aimed at sustainable commercial use of genetic resources and traditional knowledge in the Amazon region, setting guidelines for foreign trade that emphasize sustainability, and proposing “Green” and “Amazon” seals to certify products and services with an environmental and social sustainability focus. Additionally, various technical committees and interministerial groups have been established to address climate change, deforestation, and forest fires in the country. Moreover, Brazil has recently reaffirmed its commitment to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, emphasizing its three dimensions: social, environmental, and economic, with a particular focus on eradicating poverty. To address these objectives, various initiatives and agencies have been established in 2023, including the Secretariat of Green Economy, Decarbonization, and Bioindustry. In 2025, Brazil is set to host COP30, another sign of its commitment to sustainable development.
Brazil does not have specific government subsidies to promote “nearshoring” or “friendshoring” for supply chains. Instead, the focus is on tax-related issues, reforms, and simplification of the tax system to enhance the country’s competitiveness. Furthermore, there is no indication that Brazil is currently addressing these issues in free trade agreements (FTAs) or other international agreements. However, some experts, such as former Finance Minister Joaquim Levy, believe that the approval of tax reform in Brazil could pave the way for “nearshoring” and attract foreign investments.
The legal regime governing trade sanctions in Brazil is multifaceted, with different laws and treaties providing the framework for sanctions. Brazil has specific legislation in place to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions that impose sanctions. Additionally, Brazil is a party to the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, which allows for the imposition of sanctions in the event of aggression against an American state. As mentioned before, recent developments in response to the weakening of the WTO AB have led Brazil to enact Law 14,453/2022. This measure seeks to obtain compensations authorized by the WTO, highlighting Brazil’s commitment to engaging with trade disputes within the framework of international law. Furthermore, Brazil has entered into various international treaties that enable the imposition of sanctions on individuals and entities in the context of international criminal cooperation. These treaties contribute to Brazil’s legal framework for sanctions. In response to ongoing geopolitical developments, such as the crisis in Ukraine and Israel/Palestine, Brazil typically maintains a neutral or conciliatory stance. The country is known for its approach of diplomacy and dialogue in international conflicts. This perspective aligns with Brazil’s commitment to non-intervention and peaceful conflict resolution, emphasizing diplomacy over punitive measures like trade sanctions.
Brazil is an active user of trade remedies, particularly in the past decade, having consistently employed various measures to address unfair trade practices and defend its domestic industries. Notwithstanding that, between 2019 and 2022, Brazil made a notable effort to reduce the stock of trade remedy measures. From 2023 onwards, in turn, Brazil has not adopted any efforts to reduce the number of trade remedies therein applied. Amongst the available trade remedies, anti-dumping measures have been the most frequently ones employed by Brazil to counteract unfair trade practices, in order to ensure a level playing field for Brazilian industries and products in the global market. In terms of the jurisdictions where these trade remedies are most commonly applied, China has been a significant focus for Brazil, with a total of 158 trade remedies measures imposed on products of this origin between 1998 and 2022. The U.S. and India have also been subject to a substantial number of trade remedies measures, with 49 and 30 measures applied, respectively. Brazil has also taken measures against imports from various EU countries. Moreover, other Asian origins, such as Chinese Taipei, Indonesia, and Thailand, have been target of a notable number of trade remedies. Regarding the products most frequently subject to trade remedies, plastics and rubbers (22.7%), chemical products (21.6%), and metals (21.4%) have been among the top categories, according to the Trade Remedies Department report.
Supplementary procedures for implementing these remedies are outlined in ordinances issued by the Secretariat of Foreign Trade (“Portarias SECEX”). Recent efforts have led to the consolidation of these rules into a single instrument, making them more accessible and easier to understand. It is important to note that these changes mainly aim to simplify the access and comprehension of those rules’ rather than introducing significant changes to the existing procedures.
The authorities responsible for applying these trade remedies include the Department of Trade Remedies (DECOM), which conducts investigations. The final decision-making body is the Foreign Trade Chamber (CAMEX), specifically its executive management board, GECEX. GECEX is composed of various ministries and government officials and assesses DECOM’s reports. In addition, GECEX also assesses public interest reports and evaluates, regardless of the conclusion on the existence of dumping, injury and causality, whether duties should be suspended or reduced for public interest reasons. More importantly, GECEX/CAMEX has the discretion to make independent decisions on applying these remedies, not being bound by DECOM’s reports. This discretion allows GECEX/CAMEX to weigh various factors and align decisions with Brazil’s broader trade goals and national interests.
Foreign producers can participate in trade remedies investigations by being identified by the relevant authority, which may issue a questionnaire for them to complete. In cases where there are a substantial number of foreign producers, the authority may select a representative sample of producers to respond to the questionnaire. Other foreign producers who have exported products to Brazil during the investigation period can voluntarily complete the questionnaire and provide necessary information. The requested information typically covers corporate structure, affiliations, financial practices, product details, production processes, capacity, sales procedures, cost and pricing details, product inventory, and export prices. Additional information may be requested based on the specifics of the trade remedy investigation.
Importers are also notified on the initiation of the proceeding and allowed to collaborate with the investigation.
These measures are in place to prevent and address circumvention of trade remedies, and their application and procedures are provided on trade remedies legislation.
In Brazil, the “lesser duty” is the default. Since the enactment of the “new” anti-dumping legislation (i.e. Decree n. 8,058/2013), where an anti-dumping duty will be set at an amount lower than the margin of dumping if it is sufficient to remove the injury inflicted on the domestic industry by the dumped imports, authorities must employ the lesser duty to detriment of the dumping margin. Furthermore, Brazil incorporates a public interest test within its anti-dumping investigations. However, it is important to note that, as of March 2023, the public interest test is no longer mandatory for all anti-dumping and countervailing measures investigations. The authority responsible for these investigations, DECOM, may initiate a public interest proceeding independently or in response to a party’s request if it identifies elements that could potentially justify the suspension of any definitive measures to be applied. It is also interesting to note that the public interest clause is also used to suspend or reduce countervailing measures. The public interest test examines specific aspects, including product characteristics, the product’s supply chain, the product market, and the potential impact of the proposed measure on this market. Additionally, the evaluation extends to the national and international availability of the product. Beyond this, GECEX, the authority responsible for determining whether the trade remedy measures should be applied, can also consider other factors, such as international policy and the convenience of the proposed measure, in deciding whether to suspend the measure based on public interest grounds.
Yes, there is a domestic right of appeal against the authority’s decisions in Brazil. They can fall under two situations: (1) specific administrative appeals on subsidies investigations, which is expressly provided on the new subsidies’ Decree, or (2) general administrative appeals. The applicable procedures for filing an Administrative Appeal are as follows: Subsidies Investigations’ Decisions: Under Article 167 of Decree n. 10.839/2021 (the new subsidies’ Decree), the Administrative Appeal shall be submitted within 10 days of the decision’s publication in the Official Gazette, to the authority that initially made the decision. If the original authority does not change its decision, the appeal is then sent to the Commercial Strategy Board (Conselho de Estratégia Comercial – CEC) as the superior body. The Board’s decision is considered final. Regular Administrative Appeals (excluding decisions on countervailing measures, which are subject to the appeal provided for in the new subsidies’ Decree abovementioned): Under Article 56 of Law n. 9.784/1992, an Administrative Appeal shall be submitted within 5 days of the decision’s publication in the Official Gazette. This appeal should be directed to the authority that issued the decision. If the authority does not reconsider the decision within five days, it will be forwarded to a higher authority.
Brazil’s trade authorities take pride in the fact that Brazilian trade remedies practices have never been successfully challenged in a panel or in the Appellate Body in the WTO. There were two disputes under the GATT 1947, that is, before the creation of WTO and its Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). In an early GATT dispute, DS22 Brazil — Measures Affecting Desiccated Coconut, it was established that GATT rules regarding most-favoured-nation treatment, schedules of concessions, and anti-dumping/countervailing duties did not apply to a Brazilian countervailing duty measure due to the initiation of the investigation before Brazil’s WTO Agreement entry into force in 1995. Additionally, the exemption for countervailing duties contained in the Agreement on Agriculture did not apply to disputes initiated before the WTO Agreement’s effective date. In another case (DS30), focusing on countervailing duties on imports of desiccated coconut and coconut milk powder from Sri Lanka, there was no panel established. Since the creation of the WTO, there were three recent occasions in which other countries requested consultations on Brazil’s trade remedies practices before the DSB (DS229: Brazil — Anti-Dumping Duties on Jute Bags from India; DS355: Brazil — Anti-dumping Measures on Imports of Certain Resins from Argentina; and DS596: Brazil — Measures concerning the Importation of PET Film from Peru and Imported Products in General). However, those disputes have not yet resulted in the establishment of panels.
Generally, the Brazilian Federal Revenue Office (RFB) is responsible for all customs-related matters, including the collection of trade remedies. The same agency is also responsible for customs-related investigations, including the failure to pay duties or measures related to trade remedies. For imports and exports, there is a system called SISCOMEX, where all information and documents related to the transaction must be submitted. RFB is responsible for customs analysis based on the information submitted in SISCOMEX. Specific matters may also fall under other agencies’ jurisdiction. For example, DECEX (Department of Foreign Trade) is responsible for managing the drawback system in Brazil. It plays a key role in overseeing and enforcing drawback concessions, ensuring that the relevant regulations are followed, and the benefits are granted as per the established rules.
Importers in Brazil can apply for binding rulings from the customs authority in advance of an import transaction. They can submit a request for consultation (“solicitação de solução de consulta“) to the Brazilian Federal Revenue Office specifically for tariff classification. However, it is important to note that these rulings are considered final and binding once issued, and they cannot be challenged directly. The decision stands as authoritative and serves as a reference for the specific case in which it was requested.
Information about import tariffs and other customs charges in Brazil can be accessed on the Brazilian government’s official website. For comprehensive customs information, the SISCOMEX website (https://www.gov.br/siscomex/pt-br) provides valuable resources, including import simulators that help determine the expected administrative and tax treatment for specific operations (https://www.gov.br/siscomex/pt-br/sistemas-de-comercio-exterior/simuladores). Additionally, further details on import tariffs, including the current rates, are available on the Chamber of Foreign Commerce’s (CAMEX’s) website (https://www.gov.br/produtividade-e-comercio-exterior/pt-br/assuntos/camex). These resources offer access to all necessary information related to imports and customs. We also recall that, although there are exceptions, as a Mercosur member, Brazil applies most tariffs as a reflection of Mercosur’s Comon External Tariffs.
a.
Yes, in Brazil, the program is referred to as the Authorized Economic Operator (Operador Econômico Autorizado or OEA). The guidelines for this program are established in Portaria RFB nº 2.384, dated July 13, 2017. Currently, only the Secretary of Foreign Trade (SECEX) has fully implemented the OEA program. Other public administration bodies or agencies exercising control over foreign trade operations, such as the National Civil Aviation Agency (ANAC), Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (Anvisa), the Army, and the National Institute of Metrology, Standardization, and Industrial Quality (Inmetro), are in the process of implementing the program, although they have encountered some challenges in doing so. b.
Yes, Brazil has established Mutual Recognition Arrangements (MRAs) with several countries and regional groups in relation to their AEO programs. These MRAs include agreements with Uruguay, China, Bolivia, Peru, Mexico, Colombia, and the USA. Additionally, Brazil has regional MRAs with Mercosur and a broader regional MRA with Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Paraguay, Peru, the Dominican Republic, and Uruguay. There are also ongoing negotiations between Mercosur and the Pacific Alliance on this topic. c. Brazil offers various customs regimes and special procedures that allow for the suspension of duties on certain imported goods: Drawback: This regime involves importing raw materials, processing them, and then exporting the finished products. It can be performed under special regimes. Customs Transit: This regime allows the transport of goods within the national customs territory, with a suspension of tax payments. It’s often used for goods that arrive at coastal ports and need to be transported to dry ports in the interior or for foreign goods merely passing through Brazilian territory. Special Deposit: This regime permits the storage of parts, components, and spare materials with a suspension of federal tax payments related to the products used in defined activities. RECOF SPED – Computerized Control Industrial Warehouse Regime: This regime allows for the import of goods for industrial purposes, which may or may not be used in manufacturing. The final industrialized products may or may not be exported, subject to certain limits defined by the regime. If these goods are sold domestically, taxes are collected without penalties and interest. Temporary Admission: This regime offers varying levels of duty suspension based on the intended use of the imported goods, which can be for events, maintenance, testing, samples, or temporary replacements. Active Improvement: This regime involves importing goods for processing, assembly, renovation, repair, and re-export, with duties suspended during the improvement process. Finally, under the ex-tarifários regime, Brazil grants import tariff reduction for certain capital (BK) or information and technology (BIT) goods provided that there is no domestic production of said goods. These customs regimes and special procedures offer opportunities for the suspension of duties on imported goods, contributing to trade facilitation in Brazil. d.
Brazil does not apply low value shipments (LVS) or de minimis shipments rules on current trade operations. However, natural persons benefit from duty free imports up to US$ 50 on e-commerce transactions. Note that this benefit specifically applies to e-commerce transactions made with companies that have registered under the Compliant Shipment (Remessa Conforme) program of the Brazilian Federal Revenue Offices.
The Manaus Free Trade Zone (ZFM), located in the city of Manaus in the Amazonas state of Brazil, is a prominent economic and industrial hub that offers several compelling benefits to businesses. Within this free trade zone, companies can enjoy significant tax incentives, including exemptions from the Imposto Sobre Produto Industrializado (IPI), Imposto de Importação (II), and Imposto de Exportação (IE) when applicable. Additionally, businesses operating within the ZFM benefit from tax advantages related to the Imposto sobre Operações de Crédito, Câmbio e Seguro, ou Relativas a Títulos ou Valores Mobiliários (IOF), Imposto de Renda na Fonte (IRF), and other levies. These tax incentives make it an attractive location for companies engaged in manufacturing, assembly, and industrial activities. It is particularly advantageous for electronics, automotive, and other industries that benefit from reduced tax burdens. With regards to bonded warehouses, they are available in Brazil and offer businesses a practical solution for the temporary storage of goods without immediate customs duties and taxes. These facilities are advantageous for companies that need to hold inventory while delaying the payment of taxes related to importation. The key distinction between bonded warehouses and customs warehouses is the storage duration. In customs warehouses, products can be stored for a maximum of three years. On the other hand, bonded warehouses provide even greater flexibility, as there is no specific time limit for storage. This makes bonded warehouses a valuable option for businesses that need extended storage periods or greater control over the timing of their tax payments. Ultimately, both bonded and customs warehouses contribute to trade facilitation by allowing companies to manage their imported goods more efficiently while enjoying tax and duty benefits.
Before and during trade agreement negotiations, Brazil employs a range of domestic scrutiny and transparency arrangements to ensure openness and inclusivity in the process. The government conducts public consultations, which though not mandatory, often occur at the initial stages of negotiations and continue throughout the process. Relevant information is disseminated to the public through press releases on official government websites. The government is open to receiving input and feedback from private sector entities and stakeholders, and it has at times conducted assessments on the regulatory impacts of such trade agreements (in line the federal government efforts to foster good regulatory practices). The status and various documents related to the negotiations are made available to the public on the official SISCOMEX website (https://www.gov.br/siscomex/pt-br/acordos-comerciais/acordos-comerciais), which is a comprehensive resource for trade agreements. The government’s approach to transparency is aimed at providing as much information as possible without compromising the effectiveness of the ongoing negotiations. With respect to the ratification process, once a trade agreement is concluded, domestic ratification procedures involve a two-step approval mechanism. First, the agreement is subjected to legislative approval, which consists of both houses of the Brazilian Congress. Following approval by the legislative branch, the trade agreement is then ratified by the head of state, typically in the form of a presidential decree. This dual process ensures that trade agreements receive both parliamentary and executive endorsement, aligning with Brazil’s constitutional requirements. It underscores the significance of democratic oversight in the approval and implementation of trade agreements, providing an additional layer of scrutiny and accountability.
In Brazil, the private sector should approach the Division of Commercial Disputes (DCCOM) within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MRE) regarding disputes related to international trade. Local traders and industry associations can request the Brazilian government to take action against measures of other jurisdictions that are inconsistent with WTO and/or FTA.