Paraguay's DNA deployed ML-based customs risk-scoring, raising fraud-detection from 18% to 73% while cutting inspections by 70%. A UC Berkeley/IGC RCT verified these gains; full deployment is estimated to recover over USD 200 million in annually unpaid duties.
Reduction in shipments inspected for equivalent audit coverage
200 million USD (researcher projection, not RCT-measured)
Estimated annual recovery potential if scaled to all ports
Details
Maturity
Scaling
Promoter
Dirección Nacional de Aduanas (DNA)
Period
2015–2022
Keywords
customs, tax administration, trade, public finance
Context
Paraguay's Dirección Nacional de Aduanas (DNA) established a risk-based selectivity system for import inspections under Decision No. 643/2015, replacing a fully manual inspection-assignment process. DNA partnered with UC Berkeley's Center for Effective Global Action (CEGA), the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Harvard University, funded by the International Growth Centre (IGC), to build and evaluate a machine-learning algorithm for targeting shipments likely to contain undeclared or undervalued goods.
Objectives
The goal was to replace inspector judgement with a data-driven risk score that could raise the fraud-detection rate of customs inspections while reducing the number of shipments physically inspected.
Activities
The ML algorithm was tested in a randomised-controlled trial embedded directly in DNA's live inspection operations, using structured administrative data — declared values, tariff codes, importer history and country of origin — rather than biometric or social data.
Results
The RCT found the ML algorithm achieved a 73% fraud-detection rate versus 18% for human-selected inspections, a fourfold improvement, while inspectors processed 70% fewer shipments to achieve equivalent audit coverage. Extrapolated to all Paraguayan customs ports, researchers estimated the system could recover over USD200 million annually in unpaid customs duties.
Conclusions
This is one of the most rigorously externally evaluated customs ML systems in a lower-middle-income-country context, but no official documentation of ongoing performance monitoring, bias auditing, or parliamentary oversight has been publicly released, leaving accountability opaque beyond the academic evaluation period.
Implementation
Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k) — No public budget figures disclosed; estimated as medium given the multi-university research partnership and the operational integration required to embed the algorithm in live customs inspection workflows.
Time to results
Medium (1–3 years) — Built on a 2015 legal mandate; the RCT evaluation and multi-institution partnership represent a multi-year research-to-operations timeline.
Staffing & skills
DNA customs inspectors implement risk-based selection informed by the model, Research/technical partnership: UC Berkeley CEGA, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Harvard University, funded by the International Growth Centre (IGC), IDB has separately supported Paraguay's broader customs and tax modernisation via technical cooperation
Conditions for success
Legal mandate for risk-based selectivity already in place via Decision No. 643/2015 before the ML evaluation
Reliance on structured administrative data (declared values, tariff codes, importer history, origin) rather than biometric or social data, limiting certain fairness risks
Embedding the RCT directly in live operations rather than a simulated/offline test
Common failure modes
No public documentation of ongoing performance monitoring, bias auditing, or parliamentary oversight after the academic evaluation period
The USD200m+ recovery figure is an extrapolation to full national deployment, not an RCT-measured outcome
Where it fits
Governance type
national customs agency
Scale
national, extrapolated from a subset of live operations to all ports
Income level
upper-middle-income
Commonly funded by
National / regional programmes
Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.
Do you run this practice?
Claim it —
verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.
Data sources
Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.