In recent years, the customs authorities opened and investigated by a huge number of administrative cases against the declarant. Many of these cases relate to the misuse, according to the customs authorities classification of goods to a particular heading fea rf. Most of the rulings on the cases of administrative violation shall be abolished by courts of arbitration. From which comes the practice of arbitration courts? First and foremost moment is the fact that the declaration of an hs code in the cargo customs declaration, does not constitute an administrative offense imputed (in case of an adequate statement describing the goods in the CCD). Peter Barbey has compatible beliefs. Consider the legal aspect of this situation: So, according to Part 1, Art.
40 of the Customs Code of the Russian Federation the goods when they are declared to the customs authorities are subject to classification, ie in respect of goods is determined Classification Code of the Commodity Nomenclature for Foreign Economic Affairs. Part 3 of the said article stipulates that in case of a violation of the rules of classification of goods when they are declared to the customs authority free to carry out the classification of goods. Under the rules of Section 2, Article. 39 of the Customs Code of the Russian Federation, fea is used to implement the measures of customs tariff and non-tariff regulation of foreign trade and other types of foreign economic activity. Administrative violation in accordance with Part 2 of Art. 16.2 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Violations acknowledged the statement by the declarant or customs broker (agent) for the declaration of goods and (or) the vehicles of false information about goods and (or) vehicles, if such information were the basis for exemption from customs duties, taxes or understatement of their size.
Thus, within the meaning of the article to the data, inaccurate statement which forms the objective side of sane administrative violation, are Quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the product, allowing to assign the appropriate product hs code. And, in this case, only the aggregate action of the declarant, which include an indication of unreliable information quantity, properties and characteristics of the goods, as well as misclassification of goods, may indicate the presence of the offense under Part 2 of Art. 16.2 of the Code of Administrative Offences. Thus we can conclude that the statement even if inauthentic hs code, by itself, does not constitute an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 16.2 of the Code of the Russian Federation Administrative Offences.