<![CDATA[Smuggling and illegal sectors have severely damaged Indonesia's economic structure. Indonesia's economy has been dominated by illegal market economy, the indication can be seen in the occurrence of a large difference between production capacity and domestic consumption levels, whereas the number of imports continues to decline. Actors can achieve large profits due to price differences or disparities, the gap between the index of production of large and medium industries and total consumption, including household consumption, is getting bigger. This reality proves the high level of smuggling in Indonesia. The research method used is normative and empirical juridical research. The nature of the research used in this study is descriptive analysis. The data sources used in this study are primary and secondary data. The method of data analysis used in this study is descriptive qualitative. Based on the results of the research, the conclusion in this study is the regulation of Customs crimes contained in the law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 17 of 2006 on amendments to Law No. 10 of 1995 on customs, which can be found in Article 103 letter A, Article 103 letter b, Article 103 letter c, Article 103 A, Article 103 letter d, Article 104 letter a, Article 104 letter b, Article 104 letter c, Article 104 letter d, Article 105, Article 107. As for smuggling as a customs crime, it is regulated in Article 102 and Article 102 A. Handling the eradication of counterfeit goods based on Law No. 17 of 2006 on customs at the Belawan Customs and Excise Office is carried out in several stages, namely through examination of goods by conducting document research and physical examination, investigating goods that are suspected of being fake or not in accordance with existing documents, taking action against goods that are strongly suspected of being counterfeit, and the last is investigating counterfeit goods located in the Belawan customs area or territory. In carrying out its functions, Belawan Customs and Excise Office often faces obstacles, including the Director General of Customs and Excise does not have its own provisions in handling the eradication of counterfeit goods, which means it is still interrelated with agencies related to these goods later.not having a clear basis for consideration in the form of guarantees or determining the amount for the suspension and issuance of counterfeit goods, the authority for the destruction of goods resulting from IPR violations is not clearly stated]]>
