DOI: 10.25136/2409-7802.2018.2.25755

Abstract: This research is devoted to existing academic approaches that offer definitions and describe purposes of 'customs duty' (including those that were formed in the pre-revolutionary period) as well as positions of scientists regading the legal nature of customs duty. The need to understand and systematize views on the matter is caused by the legal reforms that have been made recently as well as The Customs Code of the Eurasian Economic Union that came into effect on January 1, 2018 and made amendments to the previous process of legal regulation thereof. In the course of the research the author has used a combination of different methods that related to both overall and specific research methods. These methods combined have allowed to achieve the research objectives and obtain necessary results. Based on the results of the research, the author has made a number of conclusions that allowed to extend current concepts and views on the customs duty. The author proves that customs duty is not a payment for imported goods or payment for creation of such a right but also a payment for actions committed by a customs authority. The main conclusion of the research that brings forth the scientific novelty and rationale of the research is that customs duty payment cannot be viewed as a necessary condition for import of goods but should be regarded as a payment for release of goods in accordance with the customs procedure the payment is subject to. Based on the aforesaid conclusions, the author offers a definition of customs duty and suggests what changes should be made in applicable legislation. 

DOI: 10.7256/2409-7136.2017.2.22132

Abstract: The article studies one of the problems accompanying the shipowner’s right to avoid customs clearance charges and ad valorem taxes for vessel maintenance carried out beyond the Customs Union’s territory (sub-clause 1, clause 1, article 347 of the Customs Code). The author studies the established judicial legal approaches to the conditions of maintenance requirement inception time for a vehicle of international transportation, and proves their inconsistency with the sense of this condition. The author applies the set of general scientific and specific legal research methods of cognition, which help obtain the necessary results. The scientific novelty consists in the fact that the author is the first who pays attention to the recently established incorrect judicial interpretation and enforcement of the condition, specified in the sub-clause 1, clause 1, article 347 of the Customs Code of the Customs Union, about the maintenance requirement inception time for a vehicle of international transportation, which in fact except the possibility to use the privilege specified in this legal provision. The author formulates the conclusions and suggestions, which, in his opinion, comply with the spirit of this condition and the legislator’s logic. 

DOI: 10.7256/2409-7136.2016.12.2146

Abstract: The author considers the existing legal problems, caused by the absence of the normative consolidation of the definition of the term “necessity to carry out the operations with a vehicle of international transportation” in the current Russian legislation, and the forms of expression of such a necessity, which is one of the conditions for the tax benefit, provided by the article 347, clause 1, sub-clause 1 of the Customs Code of the Customs Union, which grants the remission of customs taxes in cases of technical maintenance and current repair of a ship. The author applies the set of methods, such as analysis, legal interpretation, the formal-legal method and others. The author concludes that: It is necessary to amend the current version of the article 347, clause 1, sub-clause 1 with the condition, that the need for the operations of technical maintenance and current repair with a vehicle of international transportation should be presented in a written form; Since the article 347, clause 1, sub-clause 1 doesn’t contain the definition of the term “necessity to carry out the operations with a vehicle of international transportation”, it is usually interpreted by judicial authorities and such a unification doesn’t take into consideration the interests of ship-owners and sometimes hampers their realization. Therefore, the definition of this term should be normatively consolidated via amending the article 4 of the Customs Code of the Customs Union with a sub-clause 53, eliminating all the contradictions. The scientific novelty of the research consists in the fact that the issues of the necessity to carry out operations of technical maintenance and current repair of vehicles of international transportation haven’t been studied in this context so far.