Import Document Review Before Filing: Brazil's LC 227

Until January 2026, the penalty for inaccurate information in a Brazilian import declaration was 1% of the customs value of the goods. Complementary Law 227, published on January 14, 2026, replaced that proportional fine with a fixed penalty regime: 100 UPF per infraction, with a floor of 50 UPF and a ceiling of 1% of the transaction value. At the 2026 UPF rate of R$ 200 (roughly US$ 35), the standard penalty is R$ 20,000 per infraction and the floor is R$ 10,000, according to Brazil’s Federal Revenue Service. The shift flipped the math: on high-value shipments, the 1% ceiling may be lower than R$ 20,000; on lower-value shipments, the R$ 10,000 floor hits harder than the old proportional fine. For anyone reviewing documents before filing the DUIMP (Brazil’s single import declaration), the cost of letting an error through went up on the shipments that make up most of a mid-sized forwarder’s volume.

The fixed penalty changes the logic of document review

Under the old regime, a description error on a US$ 10,000 import triggered a fine of roughly R$ 600, depending on the exchange rate (1% of customs value). The same error on a US$ 500,000 import cost around R$ 30,000. LC 227/2026 untied the penalty from cargo value: the standard fine is now R$ 20,000 (100 UPF), with a floor of R$ 10,000 (50 UPF), regardless of what the cargo is worth. Conjur, a leading Brazilian legal publication, analyzed the change and noted that the new regime is proportionally harsher on lower-value imports than the old 1%.

Customs brokers reviewing import documents work with two realities: high-value shipments, where the review always got more attention because the absolute risk was higher, and lower-value shipments, where the review was often quicker because the proportional fine was small. With a fixed penalty, a wrong HS code or a description that diverges between the invoice and the declaration costs the same in both cases. Document review no longer has a risk floor tied to cargo value.

For a Brazilian freight forwarder filing hundreds of declarations a month, a significant share of the volume sits in the US$ 5,000 to US$ 30,000 customs value range: spare parts, samples, industrial inputs, fractioned raw materials. On those shipments, the fixed penalty under LC 227 can represent 1% to 5% of the cargo value itself. Reviewing documents before filing the DUIMP, which was already good practice, now carries a direct financial argument.

The commercial invoice is the source of most errors

Article 557 of Brazil’s Customs Regulation (Decree 6,759/2009) lists the mandatory elements of a commercial invoice: exporter and importer name and address, detailed goods description including commercial and scientific name where applicable, brand, model, serial number, quantity, gross and net weight, country of origin and provenance, trade term (Incoterm), currency and unit and total value, freight and insurance. When the invoice leaves the exporter with an incomplete or divergent field, the error propagates.

The goods description is the field that causes the most problems during review. The exporter describes the product using their commercial vocabulary; the customs broker needs the description to identify the HS code without ambiguity. If the invoice says “steel parts” and the bill of lading repeats “steel parts,” the DUIMP needs something more specific: “carbon steel bolts, M10 metric thread, no surface treatment,” because the HS classification depends on material, form, and finish. The cross-check between documents starts here: what the invoice says must be enough to classify, and what the B/L and packing list say must be consistent with the invoice.

Another recurring field is unit value. In operations with multiple line items on the same invoice, the unit value of each line must be correct because Brazil’s Federal Revenue compares it against reference prices in the customs valuation system. A data entry error that swaps US$ 1.20 for US$ 12.00 shows up as an indicator of undervaluation or overvaluation and can push the customs risk assessment into a yellow or red channel. In our experience with freight forwarders in Brazil, a divergent unit value is the second most frequent cause of document review issues, behind incomplete descriptions.

The B/L and packing list carry discrepancies the invoice created

The bill of lading, in ocean freight, and the AWB, in air freight, repeat part of the commercial invoice information: goods description, gross weight, number of packages, shipper and consignee names. The packing list details weight and volume per item. When the commercial invoice goes out with the wrong gross weight, the B/L filed by the carrier may repeat that weight, while the packing list may carry a different number calculated by the exporter’s shipping team.

During customs risk assessment, Brazil’s Federal Revenue cross-references the DUIMP data with the CE Mercante (the electronic cargo manifest for ocean freight) and the cargo manifest. If the gross weight declared in the DUIMP diverges from the weight in the CE Mercante, the system flags the discrepancy. If the number of packages declared in the DUIMP diverges from the attached packing list, the same flagging occurs. Each discrepancy can trigger an inquiry in the yellow channel or a physical inspection in the red channel, and each field corrected after filing can trigger the fixed penalty under LC 227.

The customs broker reviewing documents before filing needs to compare: gross weight across the invoice, B/L, and packing list; number of packages across all three documents; goods description on the invoice against the B/L description; the Incoterm on the invoice against the B/L; the exporter name on the invoice against the B/L shipper. We covered the cost of post-filing corrections in detail: each corrected field consumes broker time and now falls under the fixed penalty regime.

The DUIMP inherits what the review missed

When the customs broker files the DUIMP on Brazil’s Portal Unico Siscomex, the data comes from the documents received: commercial invoice, B/L or AWB, packing list, certificate of origin where applicable, and licenses (LPCO) when required by the relevant agency. If the document review did not happen or was superficial, the DUIMP filing replicates the source document errors.

Manual data entry during customs clearance adds another layer of risk: even when the documents are correct, the operator re-keying fields into the DUIMP can introduce new errors. An HS code with one digit swapped, a truncated description, a weight copied from the wrong packing list line. Each of these errors, which used to be penalized by the percentage of customs value, now falls under the fixed penalty per infraction regime.

Amending a DUIMP after filing is possible, but timing matters. Amendments made before the Federal Revenue begins its customs review receive different treatment than those made after. A voluntary amendment before enforcement action can reduce the penalty, but the correction still consumes hours of the clearance team’s time and delays cargo release. The penalty for incorrect DUIMP data was already a problem before LC 227; with the fixed penalty, the incentive to review before filing is stronger.

What to check before filing the DUIMP

Document review before filing the DUIMP follows a logical order: first the source document (commercial invoice), then the transport documents (B/L or AWB and packing list), then consistency across all of them.

On the commercial invoice, the broker checks the 14 mandatory elements under Article 557 of the Customs Regulation: complete exporter and importer identification, goods description with enough detail for tariff classification, quantity and unit of measure, gross and net weight, unit and total value in the transaction currency, trade term (Incoterm), country of origin and provenance, freight and insurance where applicable.

On the B/L or AWB, the review compares: shipper against the invoice exporter, consignee and notify against the importer, goods description (at least consistent with the invoice, even if summarized), gross weight, number of packages, port of loading and port of discharge.

On the packing list, the review verifies: total gross weight matches the invoice and B/L, number of packages matches the other documents, net weight per item is consistent with the invoice.

Across documents, the cross-check identifies: weight discrepancies (the field that most often triggers inquiries), description discrepancies that could affect HS classification, value discrepancies that alter the customs value, and Incoterm inconsistencies between the invoice and B/L.

Field-level document validation complements this review with technical checks: container number format (ISO 6346 with check digit), port code (UN/LOCODE), currency code (ISO 4217), logical date sequence (shipment date before arrival date). These checks are objective and automatable; the content review (does the description match the HS code, does the value make sense for the product) requires the broker’s judgment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the penalty for errors in Brazil’s DUIMP in 2026?

Complementary Law 227/2026 replaced the proportional 1% fine on customs value with a fixed penalty of 100 UPF per informational infraction, with a floor of 50 UPF and a ceiling of 1% of the transaction value. At the 2026 UPF rate of R$ 200, the standard fine is R$ 20,000 and the floor is R$ 10,000 per infraction.

What should you check before filing the DUIMP?

Document review before filing the DUIMP starts with the commercial invoice (the 14 mandatory elements under Article 557 of Brazil’s Customs Regulation), continues with consistency between the invoice, B/L, and packing list (weight, packages, description, Incoterm), and finishes with technical validations like container number format, port code, and currency code. Discrepancies between documents are the leading cause of customs review inquiries.

Can a bill of lading error hold up an import?

A discrepancy between the B/L and the import declaration can trigger an inquiry in the yellow channel or a physical inspection in the red channel. If the B/L gross weight diverges from what was declared in the DUIMP, or if the goods description is inconsistent, Brazil’s Federal Revenue may require clarification before releasing the cargo. Amending after filing consumes time and, under LC 227/2026, can trigger a fixed penalty.

How Autodocs checks fields before anyone opens the document

Autodocs receives the commercial invoice, B/L, and packing list by email, API, or directly from Tier2 Cargo, classifies each document, and extracts every field with its value, confidence score, and source page. Before delivering the record, the validator library checks what can be verified objectively: container number check digit (ISO 6346), port code (UN/LOCODE), currency code (ISO 4217), AWB format (IATA mod-7), required fields filled, and line item totals matching the grand total. What remains uncertain goes to the broker for review; what passed validation enters the system as a ready record. Content review, like whether the description matches the HS code, stays with the broker, but they receive fields already extracted and verified instead of re-keying each one.

Learn about Autodocs or get in touch.

Filing first and checking later costs more than it used to. Building a document validation routine, whether manual or automated, is cheaper than the combination of amendment hours and fixed penalties that LC 227 brought in.