Review of Court Practice on Customs Disputes (Q1 2024)
> Resolution of the Judicial Collegium for Administrative Cases of the Aktobe Regional Court No. 1599-23-00-4a/163 dated October 3, 2023
Question about the use of data from export declarations received inwithin the framework of information interaction with the customs service of the PRC
Company D was subject to a desk customs audit based on data provided by the risk management system. Based on the results of the inspection, a notice of elimination of violations was issued, to which Company D sent an explanation to the customs authority with supporting documents attached. The customs authority made a decision to recognize the notice of elimination of violations as unfulfilled, which served as the basis for appealing administrative acts in court.
Conclusions of the appellate court:
- In the contested decision, the customs authority did not provide any reasons why the explanations of Company D were not accepted.
- The information provided by the customs authority, received as part of the information exchange with the customs service of the People's Republic of China, is not acceptable by law, since it contradicts paragraph 6 of the Protocol on the exchange of preliminary information on goods and vehicles transported across the customs borders of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the People's Republic of China. In particular, the Protocol states that the information received can only be used for customs control. Such information may not be published or distributed to third parties, or used as evidence in judicial or administrative proceedings, unless such use has received the consent of the relevant party to the Protocol.
The appellate court left the court's decision in this case unchanged.
> Resolution of the Judicial Collegium for Administrative Cases of the Mangistau Regional Court No. 4799-23-00-4a/198 dated February 15, 2024
The issue of violation of the sampling procedure and samples, as well as stopping a transport vessel
Department of Economic Investigations (“DER"" assuming that certain companies were exporting oil from the Republic of Kazakhstan under the guise of fuel oil, carried out operational investigative measures. DGD, on the basis of a report received from the DER, stopped an oil tanker to take samples and samples of fuel oil. A customs examination confirmed that the exported oil product was fuel oil. Company B filed a claim to recognize unlawful actions of the DGD to take samples and stop the transport vessel.
Conclusions of the appellate court:
- By stopping the transport vessel and taking samples based on the request of the DER, the DGD violated the norms of Articles 18 and 421 of the Customs Code.
- The DGD should have appointed an on-site customs inspection, issued an order and, within the framework of such an inspection, assigned an examination and carried out other actions.
The appellate court upheld the decision of the trial court.
