• Customs scrutiny across the EME region is intensifying due to post-Covid economic pressures, geopolitical tensions like the Russia‑Ukraine war, and the rapid growth of e-commerce.
• Authorities are shifting from reactive inspections to proactive enforcement, leveraging technology, big data, and integrated market surveillance to flag suspicious shipments upstream and post-release.
• Companies face heightened compliance expectations beyond paperwork, including supply chain resilience, technology infrastructure, and oversight of customs service providers.
• Common compliance gaps include poor data governance, undervaluation, omission of intellectual property costs, inadequate internal customs policies, and non-fiscal compliance lapses.
• High-volume, high-duty sectors such as e-commerce, consumer goods, and electronics are under particular scrutiny due to valuation, classification, and fraud risks.
• Best practices include embedding customs compliance into corporate DNA, exercising due diligence on suppliers’ origin claims, strengthening internal controls, and preparing for supranational enforcement coordination.

Customs authorities across the EME region are ramping up scrutiny—and for good reason. “Several key factors are driving heightened customs scrutiny across the region. Economic pressures post‑Covid are reinforcing the need to protect domestic industry and ensure a level playing field vis‑à‑vis foreign production, with the customs authorities increasingly reinforced as the market’s gatekeeper,” Reed Smith’s Global Regulatory Enforcement partner Philippe Heeren stated.

“The Russia‑Ukraine war” adds another layer, he says. “Geopolitical tensions, most notably the Russia‑Ukraine war, have significantly intensified the focus on export controls and sanctions enforcement. In this respect, the EU is developing a more autonomous legal and enforcement framework, diverging in some respects from traditional US alignment.” As policymakers seek greater autonomy, companies must brace for enforcement regimes that diverge—even subtly—from US rules.

Meanwhile, consumer behavior continues to disrupt legacy systems. “The exponential growth of e‑commerce is straining traditional enforcement models and prompting new regulatory responses.” What used to be niche high-volume imports are now the norm, testing the limits of customs processes built for lower-volume trade.

The combination of these forces—economic nationalism, sanction proliferation, and logistical complexity—means authorities are shifting from reactive inspections to proactive enforcement. “Customs authorities are advancing their use of technology in enforcement, though there is still work on the table. I expect that enforcement activity will intensify as the result of tech use in the coming years,” he forecasts. Case in point: the EU’s Import Control System 2 strengthens risk screening upstream, tackling suspicious shipments before they arrive.

Heeren also notes the emergence of integrated market surveillance: “We are also seeing increased technology use and reliance on big data in post-release audits, as well as statistical analysis to extrapolate insights across entire import populations. Through the growing integration of market surveillance databases with customs systems, declaration data will truly become dynamic: if an underlying certificate, registration, or due diligence document is invalid, shipments will be automatically flagged or stopped.”

For companies, the message is unmistakable: the dashboard of customs enforcement is evolving—fast. The questions they now face include not only whether their paperwork is correct, but whether their broader supply chain resilience and tech infrastructure can meet these rising thresholds.

Overlooked gaps and emerging risks 

Even with intensified enforcement, many companies are blindsided by seemingly minor oversights. Heeren tackles the most common lapses—starting with data. “We often see companies that have expanded their operations but their customs compliance has not kept pace. The most common compliance gaps relate to poor data governance and inadequate internal customs policies.” Without clear ownership and internal policies, firms risk under-declaring value or omitting intellectual property-linked costs, especially when manufacturing outsourced. “This can result, for example, in the omission of key elements from the customs value, such as design and development costs or intellectual property, especially when manufacturing is outsourced. Or in an absence of customs-specific policies, for instance when it comes to the valuation of intercompany transactions. Or in the absence of any oversight of customs service providers, such as customs brokers.”

Heeren also emphasises something few businesses audit: non-fiscal compliance. “Companies tend to be relieved when their goods clear smoothly, which makes sense, as uninterrupted flows support operations and business performance. However, what companies often fail to see is that the release of goods does not equal solid compliance. Customs can conduct post-release audits years after an import or export took place, potentially uncovering errors that happened at scale. A risk indicator that is often overlooked is non‑fiscal compliance, as it historically received less attention. Companies must be vigilant beyond just duties and taxes. The introduction of new tariffs in today’s world also changes the enforcement game for specific sectors – some did not encounter any tariffs until recently.”

In industries such as e‑commerce, consumer goods, and electronics, compliance hazards multiply. These are typically high-volume, high-duty goods prone to valuation and classification issues. “They are under increased scrutiny because they often involve high-duty products, complex goods subject to consumer protection laws, and supply chains that present valuation and overall customs compliance challenges. Certain product categories within this group are also known for higher fraud risk, for instance around customs valuation for textiles.”

So what can companies do? Heeren recommends embedding customs compliance into their DNA. “Leverage technology to capture and manage customs data effectively, to strengthen oversight of customs service providers, and to exercise internal controls. It is a way to embed customs compliance in the DNA of the company, without losing commercial agility.”

He also warns that origin misstatements can trigger criminal liability: “If a supplier claims a product is made in a certain country, do you simply accept that at face value? There is an obligation to exercise due diligence: review your counterparty, ask questions, verify claims, and document your informed judgement. Too often, companies skip this step, exposing themselves to significant legal and financial risk.”

Finally, enforcement is getting supranational coordination. Institutions like the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the proposed European Customs Agency are now driving cross-border customs investigations. He advises: “Companies can prepare by ensuring consistency in their customs policies in different import countries and by building out defence positions that can withstand coordinated multi‑country scrutiny on high‑risk topics such as customs valuation or origin. In some cases, proactively seeking binding customs decisions may provide certainty, but this should be approached strategically given the long‑term implications and potential for scrutiny.”