Artificial intelligence is reshaping customs‑compliance workflows—from automated tariff‑code assignment to predictive risk scoring. It is tempting to assume the same technology can pinpoint intellectual‑property (IP) border measures. In practice, this expectation collides with legal realities and the tactics of infringers.
1 . Manifest data rarely reveals the infringement
Infringers almost never list the goods for what they truly are. A bill of lading may list “accessories” or “stationery” while the container is packed with counterfeit footwear or infringing media. HS codes are misclassified, quantities are split across multiple B/Ls, and—most critically—there is no legal duty to declare a trademark or reference copyrights. When the paperwork is silent, an AI model has no reliable signal to flag.
2 . No reliable data, no training data
AI models need labeled inputs: images, brands, and product identifiers. Import declarations often lack IP-specific information, and many high-risk consignments arrive in plain boxes without origin marks. Without explicit product or IP identifiers, algorithms cannot match against databases or watch lists.
3 . Physical evidence rules
Only an on-site inspection uncovers the decisive cues:
- Logos or products concealed inside inner packaging
- Misspelled labels, low‑resolution printing, or off-color inks
- Quantity or weight discrepancies that contradict declared values
X-ray scanners, detection dogs, and handheld spectrometers are valuable adjuncts, but they still depend on an officer physically opening the shipment.
Takeaway for rights holders
Until declarations become fully transparent—a remote prospect—physical inspection, backed by well-trained customs officers, remains the last and best line of defense against IP infringement at the border. Seizures will continue to rely on human expertise.
Eduardo Ríos
Partner at CorralRosales
eduardo@corralrosales.com
Miguel Maigualema
Associate at CorralRosales
miguel@corralrosales.com