由於我國對於智慧財產權的保護制度基本上是深受到國際公約以及智慧財產權保護先進國家的影響，因此對於智慧財產權保護的法律規範條文大體以此兩者的規範作為藍圖。對於海關所為的邊境管制措施作為保護智慧財產權重要的一環而言，其自然亦不脫此一基礎架構。本文除了介紹我國以及國際公約(TRIPS)關於保護智慧財產權的邊境管制措施架構與內容外，同時以我國海關在查緝智慧財產權侵害的角度上，提出對於我國現行邊境管制措施的建議。以本文的建議，除了法規架構的調整外，我國除對於違法的著作權真品平行輸入有少量免責的規定外，應考慮其他侵害類型對於少量侵害免責的可能性，同時，我國對於真品平行輸入的規範上，不應超越美國的標準。此外對於通知權利人侵權行為人的相關資訊的限制規定，亦應加以適度放寬。對於我國處理商標侵權物品的相關規定是否抵觸國際公約(TRIPS)的相關規定，似乎容或有斟酌的空間。最後，對於世界關務組織所制定的「海關統一權利暫定執行標準」，雖然其最後因為開發中國家的反對而暫時未能實施。但是本文認為其對於將來海關的智慧財產權保護邊境管制措施的可能改變，具有重要的指標意義。尤其我國位於海運的重要樞紐上，因此該規範中對於轉口貨物的智慧財產權侵權邊境管制規範的發展，值得我國的持續關注。

The legal system in protection of Intellectual Property in Taiwan is basically following such infrastructure in countries with advanced legal protection of Intellectual Property and international treaty as blueprint because it is deeply influenced by these two factors. Since the border measurement issued by Customs is one important part of legal protection in Intellectual Property, the border measurement of Customs in Taiwan is also bearing the same characteristic just mentioned. In this Article, besides introducing the basic structure and content for Intellectual Property protection both in Taiwan and under the treaty of TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual PropertyRights), it is also brining up suggestions for our current border measurement in Intellectual Property protection from the angle of Customs in Taiwan to investigate Intellectual Property infringement. According to the observation in this Article, beside the needed adjustment in provision structure, the authorities in Taiwan shall consider the possibility of exempting infringed goods for intellectual property (other than copyright infringement) of smallest amount (traveler’s personal baggage contains goods of a non-commercial nature within the limits of the duty-free allowance) outside the scope of regulation; at the same time, reconsider not regulating parallel importation more restrictive than the United States. And the limitation of refrain from releasing information related to the infringer shall be lessened appropriately. It also suggests the issue of whether the procedure of dealing counterfeit goods in trademark in Taiwan contradicts the regulation in TRIPS shall also be reconsidered. Last, as to “Provisional Standards Employed by Customs for Uniform Rights Enforcement (S.E.C.U.R.E)” which had been discussed in World Customs Organization, it has significant meaning to the possible future changes to Customs border measurement as regard in this Article, even thought it did not become a part of international obligation to Customs because the opposing opinion from the developing countries. Especially while Taiwan is serving as a pivotal geographic position in international transportation, it worth that we continue paying attention to the development of the issue inregulating border measurement to Intellectual Property infringement for transshipment situation.