A photo taken of the North Korea – China border in 2014. (Lawrence Wang, Flickr, Creative Commons)
Daily NK has acquired the full text of North Korea’s Customs Authority Act, which was revised in May.
The most significant change in the revised act is the expansion of the customs authority’s mandate from oversight, control, enforcement and investigations to include the adjudication of law violations.
Article 3 (Status and Installation of the Customs Authority) of the revised act states, “The customs authority is the body that oversees and controls customs inspections and clearance of all goods passing across the national border (including international mail and hand-carried goods) and means of transportation; assesses tariffs; enforces the law; investigates and handles violations thereof.”
Compared to the law’s previous version, the customs authority is now explicitly authorized to “handle” infractions of the law.
Paragraph 3 of Article 8 (Powers of the Customs Authority) of the revised act provides that the Customs Authority “is to enforce the law and handle violations discovered during customs searches and oversight, order appropriate remedies, and issue punishment in accordance with the severity of the law violations.” This represents an expansion from the original act, which stated the Customs Authority “is to enforce the law, handle violations thereof and order appropriate remedies.”
Implications for border trade and enforcement
“The Customs Authority’s expansion from supervision to the direct investigation and adjudication of law violations reflects the regime’s intention of bringing border trade under more centralized control,” said Hwang Hyun-uk, senior researcher at Daily NK’s AND Center.
“The challenge is that expanding the agency’s authority creates opportunities for customs officers to exercise greater discretion. This structure may increase the potential for corruption and create additional leverage over traders and ordinary citizens,” said Hwang, who interprets the legal revision as indicating tighter state control.
The revised law adds Chapter 6, a separate section detailing legal consequences including fines, confiscation, warnings, disciplinary labor, dismissal from official positions and criminal punishment. The original law included legal consequences in Chapter 5 (Guidance and Control of Customs Work), but the revised law establishes this as a distinct chapter.
Significantly, a provision regarding petitions in the original law (Article 88) was removed entirely during the revision.
Article 88 had stated, “In the case of a disagreement about customs work, a petition can be filed with the agency in question or with the customs guidance office at the Central Committee. Petitions are to be dealt with within 30 days of being filed.”
The original provision functioned as an appeals mechanism that allowed affected parties to file a complaint or request reconsideration of a customs decision. The elimination of this provision removes formal channels for contesting customs actions.
The revised law also specifies more extensive penalties for violations.
The original law listed three cases in which fees could be assessed. The revised law expands this to 11 such cases.
Additionally, the fines are now itemized in greater detail, with specific amounts designated for each scenario.
Whereas the original act grouped warnings, severe warnings, unpaid labor, disciplinary labor, demotions and dismissals together in Article 86, the revised act separates the punishments into three distinct sections: Article 83 (Punishments: Warnings and Severe Warnings), Article 84 (Punishments: Unpaid Labor and Disciplinary Labor) and Article 85 (Punishments: Demotions and Dismissals).
“The more detailed penalty structure appears designed to increase state oversight of cross-border goods and foreign currency flows. This development may create additional uncertainty for individuals engaged in border trade, potentially affecting price stability in informal markets and supply chain dynamics,” Hwang assessed.
“The revision of the Customs Authority Act appears consistent with a broader pattern of measures aimed at reducing market-based economic activity and increasing state oversight of individual commercial activities,” he said.
Read in Korean
