On challenging the notification of the results of the inspection of customs and other documents and (or) information regarding the customs declaration
6001-22-00-6ap/2174 dated 03/28/2023
Plaintiff: JSC "E"
Respondent: Russian State Institution "Department of State Revenue for Pavlodar region of the State Revenue Committee of the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan"
The subject of the dispute: on challenging the notification of the results of the inspection of customs and other documents and (or) information regarding the customs declaration, documents confirming the information stated in the customs declaration dated September 2, 2021 No. 83, on challenging the decision to amend (addenda) to the information stated in the goods declaration dated September 2 2021, in terms of additional customs duties
Review of the defendant's cassation complaint PLOT:
The Company imported a "vehicle" product into the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
The specified product was purchased by the Company under an agreement dated May 15, 2020.
This product is declared (declared) By the Company in the declaration of goods (hereinafter referred to as DT) No. 50802/201220/0000990 according to the EAEU HS code - 8431 39 000 0 , as "Other parts of machines or mechanisms of heading 8428". The specified product is declared as an integral part of the BSW loop trolley-
1800 and serves to move the receiving boom of the ARsBK 5000.00 dumper along the rail track along the conveyor belt of the conveyor of the dump cyclic-flow stripping complex of the section
Vostochny (Pavlodar region). The customs value of the goods is X tenge. The customs duty rate for the specified code is 0 percent. During customs clearance, the declarant paid a customs fee for customs declaration in the amount of 20,000 tenge and VAT.
According to notification No. 71 dated May 25, 2021, the Department conducted an inspection of customs and other documents and information stated in the customs declaration in respect of the Company.
On September 2, 2021, the Department issued a decision on amendments (additions) to the information stated in the declaration for goods that were amended with the assignment of the goods to commodity subheading 8709 11 900 0.
On the same day, the Department issued notification No. 83 on the results of the inspection of customs and other documents and (or) information regarding the customs declaration, which charged additional customs duties to the declarant, including: customs duty and customs duty penalty, VAT and penalty.
Judicial acts:
1st instance: the claim was denied.
Appeal: the decision is overturned, the claim is satisfied.
Cassation: judicial acts are cancelled, the case is sent for new consideration.
Conclusions:
The court of first instance reasoned that the goods imported by the plaintiff
"Vehicle 450906 (support trolley)" is a self-propelled industrial vehicle not equipped with lifting or loading devices.
The appellate instance, overturning the court's decision, concluded that the support trolley is not an independent self-propelled vehicle, it cannot be used outside the dumper. This equipment can only be used in combination with a dumper and a belt conveyor for moving and lifting bulk materials at an angle.
It was established that by the decision of the Department on the classification of goods dated August 16, 2021 No. 50800/21/0039, the goods imported by the declarant were classified in commodity subheading 8709 11 900 0 (Other electric vehicles, industrial, self-propelled, not equipped with lifting or loading devices, used in factories, warehouses, ports or airports for the transportation of goods over short distances tractors used on platforms of railway stations), where the customs duty rate is 10 percent of the customs value of the goods.
Based on this decision, the Department issued notices and decisions disputed by the plaintiff, but the plaintiff did not challenge the Department's decision on the classification of goods dated August 16, 2021 in court.
This fact indicates that the court of first instance, in violation of the principle of the active role of the court, did not explain to the plaintiff about his right to challenge this decision of the Department. This violation of the law was also not eliminated by the appeals board.
The courts did not give a proper legal assessment to the defendant's arguments, as a result of which the circumstances relevant to the proper resolution of the dispute were not clarified in the case.
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
