The use of foreign-registered vehicles brought into the mode of “transit”, recognized as legitimate.
The Supreme Court upheld the indefinite use of foreign-registered vehicles brought into the country in the “transit”. About it reports a press-service of the court on Monday, October 22.
“The use of a private car with Euronorm imported as a transit, is not an offence provided by the Customs code”, – stated in the message.
In a press-service of the court stressed that the use or disposal of vehicles for personal use, imported for the purpose of transit through the customs territory of Ukraine is not an administrative offense.
It is noted that this is the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court, having considered the cassation claim of the individual to the customs for cancellation of the fine in the amount of 8 500 UAH for the use of uncleared cars on avtonomera. The essence of the dispute is that the plaintiff, who is the owner of the vehicle registration number in Estonia, there is not shot from the register, February 26, 2016 has imported this vehicle into the customs territory of Ukraine on the basis of the customs Declaration for the purpose of transit.
During the trial the plaintiff acknowledged that the regime “transit” only in order to avoid the necessity of customs clearance of the vehicle and payment of appropriate charges. At the same time, the plaintiff did not agree with the imposed fine and challenged it in cassation, referring to the decision of the constitutional Court, which stated that the use or disposal of vehicles for personal use, imported for the purpose of transit through the customs territory of Ukraine is not an administrative offense.
The Supreme Court, composed of judges from the Cassation administrative court acknowledged that the appeal should be granted. As follows from the contested decision, the basis for its decision was that the plaintiff in the terms defined by the Customs code (for vehicles or 10 days, in case of moving in the area of one customs office – 5 days), the car is not exported from Ukraine, but continues to use it as a means of transport, customs clearance of which has not been completed, without the permission of customs.
Given the conclusion of the constitutional court, the Supreme Court noted that part 2 of article 469 of the Customs code of clearly defined actions, inactions, and conditions that are qualified as offences in respect of goods, customs clearance of which has not been completed.
Such a customs regime, temporary importation, are not defined in specified provisions of the code. In the circumstances the panel of judges of Cassation administrative court considers reasonable cancellation penalty because the actions of the plaintiff not constitute a violation of customs regulations under part 2 of article 469 of the Customs code of Ukraine.
© 2018, z-news.link. All rights reserved.