Why change the customs clearance of cars from the USA

The Supreme court overturned some guidelines for working with directories to determine the customs value of vehicles

Why change the customs clearance of cars from the USA

The Supreme court adopted important for entrepreneurs and individuals importing vehicles through the customs territory of the Russian Federation from the USA and Canada, as well as implement them on the territory of the Russian Federation the decision, in terms of determining the customs value of motor vehicles, recognizing not operating from the date of adoption of Methodological guidelines for working with directories (reference) independent expert organizations N. A. D. A. and Kelly Blue Book to determine the customs value of motor vehicles (into force this decision became final on 25 September 2018).

 

And so, the Supreme court, taking into account the following documents:

25 Dec 2007 the Federal customs service issued the letter N 05-11/49697 “About the direction of Methodical recommendations on using the car reference”, in the Annex to which contains Methodical recommendations for working with directories (reference) independent expert organizations N. A. D. A. and Kelly Blue Book to determine the customs value of vehicles imported into the customs territory of the Russian Federation with the North American market, and on the basis of the claim in the administrative case filed by an individual entrepreneur, “on the invalidation of guidelines, referring to their conflict with paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 15 article 38, subparagraph 3 of paragraph 5 of article 45 of the Customs code of the Eurasian economic Union”, is not recognized as valid guidelines for work with catalogues to determine the customs value of motor vehicles of such independent expert organizations like N. A. D. A. and Kelly Blue Book.

 

In particular, the decision of the Supreme Court of 21.08.2018 No. АКПИ18-608 States that the Customs value of goods imported into the customs territory of the Customs Union shall be determined in accordance with Chapter 5 of the Customs code of the Eurasian economic Union (entered into force 1 January 2018), which sets out six methods for determining customs value of goods.

 

Meanwhile, unlike the current legal regulation guidelines (applied to control and determine the customs value of vehicles imported into the territory of the Russian Federation with the North American market) contain an independent method of determining the prices, obligatory for application by the customs authorities, which is contrary to the established legal practice of the customs authorities.

 

However, this dual interpretation does not match the order of realization of powers of the FCS of Russia, as well as the form of corresponding normative legal act and without complying with the legislation of the Russian Federation of requirements to the procedure of preparation, adoption, state registration and publication.

 

Why change the customs clearance of cars from the USA

“This pricing information should be used in order to detect inconsistencies in the declared value of the goods, its qualitative characteristics, conditions of foreign trade transactions and other factors that influence pricing,” which will affect the pricing mechanism to determine the customs value of motor vehicles, in part of the rights and duties of citizens that are or may be relevant declarants in customs matters.

 

The Supreme court after the proceedings came to the conclusion that the Federal customs service, not the procedure of adoption of normative legal act, its view (form) guidelines are recognized not operating fully, thus were considered not applicable “since the adoption of the Methodical recommendations for work with directories (directories) independent expert organizations N. A. D. A. and Kelly Blue Book to determine the customs value of vehicles imported into the customs territory of the Russian Federation with the North American market (Appendix) to the letter of the Federal customs service dated 25 December 2007 No. 05-11/49697”, it is told in the decision of the SC.