'Don't Stop at Port' Reform — How Israel's 2024 Standardisation Reform Cuts Clearance Time

1. What the Reform Actually Does

The reform changes when regulatory compliance is verified — not whether. The product still has to meet every applicable Israeli standard. The technical requirements are unchanged. What changed is the sequence: instead of presenting a lab approval at the moment of customs declaration, the importer signs a declaration that the product complies, the cargo is released, and a risk-based selection of shipments is audited afterwards.

This is the same model that has run in the European Union for years and is sometimes called declaration-based release with post-clearance audit. It dramatically shortens the time cargo sits at the port and shifts compliance enforcement from a chokepoint at the dock to a continuous regulatory function.

2. The Context — Why This Reform Now

Israeli ports — particularly Ashdod and Haifa — have struggled for years with congestion and long dwell times. Lab approvals for standards-controlled products were a major cause: containers sat at the terminal while samples travelled to a recognised laboratory, results came back, and only then could the customs broker present the approval and trigger release. For products in Groups 2 and 3 (medium and lower risk), this added days to weeks of unnecessary detention, and burdened the importer with terminal-storage charges that had nothing to do with the product itself.

The Ministry of Economy, the Standards Institution of Israel (SII), and Israel Tax Authority designed the reform jointly. The branding "Don't Stop at Port" captures the intent: stop holding cargo at the terminal pending paperwork that can be done — and audited — afterwards.

3. Before vs After — Side by Side

4. The Five Exemption Codes (60–64)

The reform introduces five exemption codes that the customs broker enters in the Sha'ar Olami (שער עולמי) electronic customs system in the field labelled Type of Exemption / Approval / Licence. The code tells customs why no lab approval is being attached:

Codes 61 and 62 replace the previous manual exemption process for goods destined for export and for R&D — both used to require an individual exemption letter; now the customs broker enters the code directly. Code 63 is the new mechanism for releasing cargo when the importer believes the relevant standard does not apply at all to the product (e.g., the model has changed and the old standard is no longer relevant). The previously used code 92 is no longer used under this reform.

5. Who Is Covered (and Who Is Not)

Covered by the reform

• Products in Import Group 2 — model approval previously required, now released against importer declaration with code 60
• Products in Import Group 3 — declaration-only group, simplified further
• Products on the Kasis route within Groups 2 and 3 — where the international standard is recognised in Israel
• Goods imported for export, R&D, or where the standard genuinely doesn't apply

Not covered

• Import Group 1 — highest-risk products (electrical safety, infant products, certain life-safety items). These still require model approval AND shipment approval AND product file at clearance — no shortcut.
• Goods regulated by other ministries outside Economy / SII — pharmaceuticals (Ministry of Health), agricultural products (Agriculture), telecom equipment (Communications), and food (Health). Each has its own clearance regime.

6. The New Clearance Process

1. Cargo arrives at the port. Customs broker has all documents in hand: commercial invoice, packing list, B/L or AWB, certificate of origin, applicable permits.
2. Customs broker files the import declaration in Sha'ar Olami with the appropriate exemption code (60 for standard Group 2/3 imports, 61–64 for the specific exemption cases).
3. Customs runs an automated risk assessment. Most shipments clear straight through. A risk-flagged subset is selected for physical or documentary inspection.
4. Cargo is released — typically the same day or next day, instead of waiting days for a lab approval cycle.
5. Importer maintains the product file at their premises with the technical evidence supporting compliance — test reports, datasheets, certificates. Subject to audit by the Commissioner of Standardisation.

7. Where Responsibility Now Sits

The reform shifts compliance accountability decisively onto the importer. Before the reform, the lab certificate was the importer's shield — produce the cert, the cargo moved. After the reform, the importer's signed declaration is the legal instrument. If a post-clearance audit finds the product does not in fact meet the standard, the importer faces:

• Recall of distributed product
• Fines from the Ministry of Economy and the Standards Institution
• Criminal liability for false declaration in serious cases
• Loss of access to the simplified clearance regime — the importer's declarations may stop being accepted, forcing a return to lab approvals

The practical implication: the reform is a major time and cost saver, but it requires the importer to actually know that the product complies — based on real test reports, manufacturer datasheets, and certificates kept in the product file. Signing a declaration without that evidence is a serious legal exposure.

8. T.L.H. (Standard Doesn't Apply) Releases

Code 63 deserves its own section because it is the most novel — and most legally sensitive — element of the reform. It is the mechanism for releasing cargo where the importer believes the standard does not apply at all to that specific product (despite the HS code suggesting it might).

When using code 63, the importer has two paths to substantiate the T.L.H. determination:

1. Self-determination based on technical analysis — the importer instructs the customs broker to enter code 63 directly, on the importer's own technical assessment that the standard does not cover the product. The Commissioner of Standardisation has the final word; the importer must be ready to defend the determination if audited later.
2. Lab-confirmed T.L.H. — the importer asks a recognised lab (SII, System, ITL, Hermon — depending on the product) to issue a confirmation that the standard is not applicable, similar to the procedure that existed for Group 1 products. This is the safer route when the situation is borderline.

Importers using path 1 should be cautious: a previous lab approval that the standard did not apply is not necessarily still valid if the model has changed or the standard has been updated. The Commissioner's procedures are explicit that the importer carries the risk.