Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Administrative and municipal law
Reference:

Khramov K. N. Certain Issues of Proof by Customs Authorities of Guilt in Administrative Cases

Abstract: The subject of this article is the relationship at law between the custom authorities of the Russian Federation and the parties responsible in customs affairs. Special attention is paid to the powers of the customs authorities in holding declarants administratively responsible. The author considers the problems related to proving the guilt in the context of customs practice in the Russian federation, arbitration courts and the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. The institute of guilt was analyzed from the point of view of admissible evidence and the requirement to take into account all the facts and circumstances which serve as the basis for exemption for customs duties or their reduction. In this research, the author uses the comparative, statistical methods, as well as induction, analysis and synthesis. Scientific novelty and conclusions: the author makes the conclusion that proof in an administrative offence is the base factor for holding someone administratively responsible and imposing penalties. It is stressed that giving the incorrect Customs Union Commodity Classification of Foreign Economic Activity code is sufficient proof of the declarant’s guilt. In such cases, on the basis of arbitration precedents, in order to find out whether a person is guilty of an administrative offence, it is necessary to comprehensively consider the fact and documents as the evidential base.


Keywords:

administrative offence, guilt, customs affairs, Customs Union Commodity Classification of Foreign Economic Activity, customs rules, Customs Code of the Customs Union, Administrative Offences Code of the Russian Federation, proof, declaration, administrative responsibility.


This article can be downloaded freely in PDF format for reading. Download article


References
1. Khalipov S. V. Tamozhennoe pravo. M.: Izdatel'stvo Yurayt, 2011.-s.24.
2. Sobranie zakonodatel'stva RF, 07.01.2002, N 1 (ch. 1), st. 1.
3. https//:www.consultant.ru/
4. Reshenie Arbitrazhnogo suda Moskovskoy oblasti ot 16.02.2013 po delu ¹A41-57882/12.
5. Sobranie zakonodatel'stva RF, 13.12.2010, N 50, st. 6615.
6. Postanovlenie FAS Moskovskogo okruga ot 14.10.2013 po delu ¹A41-57882/12.
7. Vestnik VAS RF, N 8, 2004.
8. https://my.arbitr.ru
9. Sobranie zakonodatel'stva RF, 29.07.2002, N 30, st. 3012.
10. Bychkovskaya A. A. Problemy dokazyvaniya viny po delam ob administrativnykh pravonarusheniyakh (v tamozhennom dele)// Tamozhennoe delo .-M.2010,¹2.-s.16-20.
11. Vestnik VAS RF, N 1, yanvar', 2014.
12. Postanovlenie FAS Dal'nevostochnogo okruga ot 30.06.2014 ¹F03-2418/2014 po delu ¹A51-33538/2013.
13. Sobranie zakonodatel'stva RF, 14.01.2013, N 2, st. 109.
14. http://www.customs.ru/
15. Sobranie zakonodatel'stva RF, 05.12.1994, N 32, st. 3301.
16. Sobranie zakonodatel'stva RF, 17.06.1996, N 25, st. 2954.