On declaring illegal the decision to make changes (additions) to the information stated in the goods declaration
No.6001-22-00-6ap/1198 dated October 26, 2023
Plaintiff: M LLP (hereinafter referred to as the Partnership)
Respondent: RSU "Main Dispatch Department of the State Revenue Committee of the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan" (hereinafter – RSU)
The subject of the dispute: on the recognition of the illegal decision on amendments (additions) to the information stated in the declaration of goods
Review of the defendant's cassation complaint
PLOT: On July 12, 2022, the plaintiff filed a declaration for goods (pickled ginger) through the information system "Automated System of Customs and Tax Administration Astana-1" (hereinafter referred to as IP Astana-1), however, a risk profile was applied to this product.
On July 14, 2022, the defendant submitted a request for additional documents and information through the Astana-1 IP, based on the documents and (or) information being verified, taking into account the terms of the transaction, the characteristics of the product, its purpose, and other circumstances.
On September 7, 2022, the plaintiff sent documents and written explanations to the defendant regarding the request to confirm the correctness of determining the customs value of the goods. The information provided in the contracts and invoices was insufficient to confirm the customs value of the goods.
Based on the available information, a reserve method for determining the customs value has been applied. The defendant made a decision to amend (supplement) the information stated in the goods declaration dated September 13, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as the decision), and applied the reserve method for determining the customs value (method 6) based on information available to the customs authority.
The partnership filed a lawsuit with the court, arguing that the plaintiff submitted documents that were not taken into account for customs clearance, as well as as part of a request to confirm the declared customs value. The cost of the goods is stated at the purchase price from the seller according to the contract, invoice, additional agreement to the contract, letter of receipt of the payment amount by the seller.
Judicial acts:
1st instance: the claim is satisfied. The decision was declared illegal and cancelled.
Appeal: the court's decision remains unchanged.
Cassation: judicial acts are upheld.
Conclusions: thus, during the comparison of the customs declaration of the country of departure and the railway bill of lading with the information of the preliminary information of the People's Republic of China, the respondent revealed a discrepancy in the information on customs value, which in turn formed the basis for customs control of the customs value in the form of verification of documents and information.
The local courts, canceling the contested administrative act, came to the conclusion that:
1) the plaintiff has provided a sufficient package of documents for the application of method 1, but the customs authority did not take them into account when making the decision;
2) there is no electronic digital signature in the decision, which excludes its legality. At the same time, subparagraph 5) of the first part of Article 80 of the CPC stipulates that the signature of an official is indicated in an administrative act adopted in written (paper and (or) electronic) form.
Article 7 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Electronic Document and Electronic Digital Signature" establishes that an electronic document that meets the requirements of this Law and is certified by means of an electronic digital signature (hereinafter referred to as EDS) of a person authorized to sign it is equivalent to a signed document on paper.
It follows from the case file that the customs declaration and the state service in the form of "Customs clearance of goods" are provided through the IP "Astana-1" through electronic document management.
However, despite the fact that the contested decision is in the form of an electronic document, it does not contain an EDS of an official authorized to sign it. At the same time, it was established that the defendant did not form the document in paper form with the signature of the official.
This means that the requirements of the law for an electronic document exclude its legitimacy without proper verification by the signature of the official indicated in its details.
Due to the fact that the contested notification was formed, issued and sent to the plaintiff in electronic form, its non-compliance with the above requirements of the legislation is a significant violation.
In the context of the above, the judicial board, without entering into a discussion of the essence of the notification, considers the conclusions of the courts on the satisfaction of the claim legitimate and justified.
The third part of Article 427 of the CPC stipulates that a substantially correct court decision cannot be overturned for purely formal reasons. In view of this, the conclusions of the courts, which assessed the essence of the notification, are subject to exclusion from the reasoning part of judicial acts.
In such circumstances, judicial acts are subject to be upheld, and the cassation appeal is dismissed.
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
