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 previous Customs Law stipulated that incorrect tariffing of goods means entering a tariff heading that is different in relation to the data on the nature of the goods (Article 294, paragraph 1, item 5). The new Customs Law prescribes that incorrect tariffing is the presentation of incorrect or untrue data, i.e. acting in any other way (Article 267, paragraph 1, item 2).
The first-instance courts hold the charged legal entities not responsible for misdemeanourbecause the new Customs Law does not incriminate the action the entry of a tariff heading which is different in relation to the data on the nature of the goodsas misdemeanour. The courts refer to the case law of the highest court instance according to which “with the expiration of the law, the possibility of its application for acts undertaken during its validity does not cease if the new law treats the same act as punishable but with stricter penalties so that the law is not more lenient.”
In addition, the courts consider that the legislator, in the transitional provisions of the new Customs Law, was obliged to explicitly indicate that the misdemeanour under Article 267, paragraph 1, item 2 consumes the misdemeanourunder Article 294, paragraph 1, item 5 of the previous Customs Law. The Misdemeanour Court of Appeals does not share the opinion of the first instance misdemeanour courts. We believe that the Constitutional Court should remove this uncertainty and bring legal certainty to the business of importers and freight forwarders.
Ivan Milošević, Partner
Janez Vončina, Senior Associate
Law OfficeJPM Janković Popović Mitić
