Many readers send us questions about particular aspects of cargo transport. To answer the questions, we have launched a project where we consult logistics experts about the topics that interest our readers. Send us your questions regarding transport, storage, forwarding, customs and documentation, implementation of customs regulations by customs authorities and customs agents, representation of clients in customs procedures, administrative, misdemeanor, and judicial procedures related to customs matters, insurance of goods in transit, carrier insurance…
We will provide answers from competent experts. We will publish a new question and answer here every week – stay tuned!
The customs authorities do not have a uniform position on this issue. Our practice is that the customs authorities’ positions are contradictory: in one case the customs authorities state that in the post-clearance audit procedure it is not possible to use evidence from other procedures (e.g., analysis of samples of the composition of goods from customs declarations that are not subject to the same post-clearance audit).
On the other side, we have cases where the customs authorities state that,evidence that was not presented in the specific post-clearance audit procedure, can be used in this the procedure. The answer to this question is essential when evaluating whether importers can be committed to paying customs debts three years back on the basis of evidence from other procedures, i.e., evidences which are not presented in a specific post-clearance audit procedure. To evaluate accuracy of data in customs declarations subject to control in the post clearance procedure, audit team is obliged to determine relevant facts and to present evidence supporting the facts exclusively in the respective post clearance procedure.
Ivan Milošević, Partner
Janez Vončina, Senior Associate
Law Office JPM Janković Popović Mitić
