Law 2586 of 2026 replaced Decree-Law 920 of 2023 as the legal framework governing customs sanctions, seizure, and forfeiture proceedings in Colombia. Although the new Law retains much of the structure of the former regime, it introduces relevant changes to the grounds for seizure, strengthens certain procedural safeguards, and adjusts several penalties. Accordingly, Law 2586 should not be regarded merely as a reproduction of the repealed Decree.
One of the most significant changes is the reduction and reorganization of the statutory grounds for seizure and forfeiture. Decree-Law 920 established 42 grounds, whereas the new Law consolidates them into 28 paragraphs. This reduction does not mean that all previous customs controls have disappeared, since several conducts have been consolidated, reformulated, or transferred to the customs sanctions regime. However, DIAN may only seize goods when the relevant facts fall expressly within a statutory ground established by law.
The new regime also limits certain situations in which seizure previously applied more broadly. For example, where goods enter the Customs Territory of Colombia through an unauthorized location, the seizure measure applies to the goods being transported, whereas Decree-Law 920 also extended seizure to the means of transport. Under Law 2586, seizure of the vehicle is primarily reserved for means of transport that have been built, adapted, altered, or modified for the purpose of concealing goods.
The Law also provides a more proportionate treatment of errors in customs declarations. Where errors exist in serial numbers or where the description of the goods is incorrect or incomplete, but such errors do not result in the identification of different goods, seizure will only proceed if the applicable penalty is not paid. Similarly, in certain cases involving inconsistencies concerning the economic capacity of the customs user, the source of funds, or the user’s location, the customs authority must rely on prior studies and evidence or initially apply a temporary detention measure rather than automatically ordering the seizure of the goods.
Law 2586 also introduces alternatives for certain instances of non-compliance that could previously result directly in forfeiture. In the case of temporary imports, for example, seizure does not apply where it is demonstrated that the goods were effectively re-exported, even if the re-exportation occurred after the applicable deadline, without prejudice to the corresponding penalty. Likewise, certain tariff classification errors may be corrected by amending the customs declaration, paying any additional customs duties and taxes due, and demonstrating compliance with the applicable legal or administrative restrictions within the statutory period.
With respect to ordinary forfeiture proceedings, the new Law maintains the seizure report, the fifteen-business-day period for filing the statement of objections, the evidentiary stage, and the subsequent decision on the merits. One favorable development is that where the statement of objections contains formal defects but includes evidence capable of disproving the alleged ground for seizure, DIAN must examine and may assess such evidence. This provision reinforces the principle of prevalence of substantive rights over procedural formalities.
The treatment of goods that cannot be seized because they are not made available to the customs authority has also changed significantly. Under Decree-Law 920, the general penalty amounted to 200% of the customs value of the goods and could be reduced to 150% in certain circumstances. Law 2586 reduces the general penalty to 100% and establishes differentiated treatment: a 70% penalty in certain cases involving goods that have been consumed, destroyed, transformed, assembled, or deteriorated; a 50% penalty where the goods support the provision of public utility services; and, in expressly defined circumstances, either no monetary penalty or a formal warning. The new Law also requires the customs authority to identify the applicable ground for seizure, formally request the goods from the interested party, and assess the evidence concerning their lawful introduction into and continued presence within the Customs Territory of Colombia before imposing the penalty.
Direct forfeiture has not been abolished. It remains a decision adopted simultaneously with the seizure of the goods, without a prior statement-of-objections stage, and the direct forfeiture report continues to constitute the final administrative decision against which only a motion for reconsideration may be filed. Law 2586 retains the threshold of 500 Tax Value Units (UVT) and the traditional categories of goods subject to direct forfeiture, including hydrocarbons, alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, perfumes, live animals, and goods whose importation is prohibited.
However, the new Law expands the scope of direct forfeiture to include vaping devices, electronic nicotine delivery systems, heated tobacco products, and oral nicotine products. It also expressly includes perishable goods as a new category subject to direct forfeiture. In addition, the tobacco and nicotine products covered by these provisions may not be recovered through customs legalization procedures involving the payment of a redemption charge.
The rules governing the concurrent application of ordinary and direct forfeiture proceedings remain similar to those established under Decree-Law 920. Where goods subject to different procedures are identified during the same customs inspection or enforcement action, separate seizure reports must be issued. If direct forfeiture proceedings were initiated but the customs authority subsequently determines that ordinary forfeiture proceedings should have applied, the administrative action must be reverted to the appropriate procedural stage in order to guarantee the applicable procedural safeguards. Conversely, where ordinary forfeiture proceedings were initially commenced, those proceedings may continue and are not required to be converted into direct forfeiture proceedings.
Does Law 2586 introduce new penalties? Yes, although the general approach of the new Law is to consolidate customs offenses and apply proportionality criteria. Among other changes, the Law introduces specific offenses applicable to operators and providers of cargo-tracking devices, with penalties of up to 1,000 UVT. It also expressly incorporates into the sanctions regime certain offenses established under Andean Community Decision 617 concerning international customs transit operations. In addition, the Law establishes new offenses related to the improper use of DIAN’s electronic information systems.
Finally, a motion for reconsideration must be filed within fifteen business days following notification of the relevant administrative decision. The motion may be filed physically or through the Electronic Appeals System. However, the Law expressly provides that an ordinary email does not constitute a valid filing. An electronic signature replaces the personal appearance requirement but does not eliminate the obligation to provide proper evidence of legal representation or authority to act on behalf of the interested party.
As of July 10, 2026, the electronic system publicly available on DIAN’s website continues to be described as a platform for filing motions for reconsideration in tax matters, and there is no publicly available evidence of a fully operational electronic module specifically enabled for customs appeals under Law 2586. Therefore, until the corresponding technological and regulatory implementation is completed, physical filing with documented proof of receipt remains the safest alternative for customs users and their legal representatives.
In conclusion, Law 2586 reduces the number of statutory grounds for seizure, limits the automatic application of forfeiture measures in certain cases involving formal errors, reduces some penalties, and strengthens evidentiary and procedural safeguards. At the same time, it maintains strict controls over sensitive categories of goods, introduces new regulated parties and customs offenses, and expands the circumstances in which direct forfeiture may apply. Importers, carriers, customs agencies, and other foreign trade operators should therefore review and update their internal compliance procedures in accordance with the new statutory framework rather than continuing to apply the provisions of repealed Decree-Law 920 of 2023.