| dc.description.abstract | The Customs enforcement at the border is one of the symbols of a country’s sovereignty. One of the purposes for a country’s Customs to activate an investigation is to prevent the infringement caused by contraband goods. In the case of imported goods, no matter whether the methods they were imported (by air, land transportation, maritime or carried by passengers) or the nationality of the importers, every country’s Customs would launch an anti-smuggling inspection as long as those goods are deemed might be illicit.
The Customs Anti-smuggling Act is the principal regulation of the suppression of smuggling in our country, which defines inspections and searches as the main methods of investigation. However, whether launching an investigation could effectively achieve national interests or interfere with people′s fundamental rights under the Constitution, such as personal freedom, property rights, freedom of residence, privacy rights and so on. It might lead to the conflict of interests between the national power and people′s fundamental rights. Therefore, how to striking a balance between the interests of the nation and the people is the topic to be discussed in this study.
This study is based on the perspective of United States Courts on border inspections to observe the questions that Taiwan Customs may face in practice. Through the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment by the United States Courts, we can understand the theoretical basis of enforcement of the United States Customs and the reason why the protection on the search for internal objects by “probable cause” and “warrants” could not be applied at the border. This study cites the perspectives of the United States Courts to provide relevant reviews and suggestions for legislation on the anti-smuggling inspections conducted by Taiwan Customs. If a conflict between the anti-smuggling inspections and the Constitution occurs in the future, hoping this study could be used for reference in the Constitutional Court. | en_US |