A case involving approximately €94,000 that the Customs Department had charged to the Cyprus Ports Authority for a car that had left a temporary warehouse at the port of Limassol without, according to the Department, having completed the required customs procedures, as the Administrative Court of Appeals ruled that the first-instance decision was not sufficiently reasoned.
The Customs Department had appealed the Administrative Court’s decision, which in 2022 had annulled the assessment following an appeal by the Port Authority, while the Port Authority filed a cross-appeal, challenging, among other things, the finding that there had been a failure on its part and raising the issue of the destruction of documents that had been approved by the Customs Department itself. At the same time, it argued that the grounds for annulment it had raised at first instance—including an inadequate investigation into the factual circumstances surrounding the delivery of the vehicle in question—had been erroneously disregarded.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
The Administrative Court of Appeals, in a decision dated September 25, 2026, upheld the Customs Department’s appeal regarding the sole ground raised and the Port Authority’s cross-appeal regarding the first and, in part, the third ground. At the same time, it set aside the first-instance decision in its entirety and referred the case to another judge of the Administrative Court.
The case concerns a car that had arrived at the port of Limassol and was placed in the Port Authority’s private temporary storage facility in 2005. In 2009, the Customs Department requested information from the Authority to verify the vehicle’s customs clearance. The Authority replied that the vehicle had been delivered to a specific individual and attached the relevant supporting documents.
In 2013, the Port Authority requested approval from the Customs Department to withdraw and destroy the Ship Import Files and Export Office Forms for the year 2005. The Senior Customs Officer approved the destruction of the original documents, which, as the Customs Department stated, was done “by mistake.”
This was followed by an investigation by the Customs Department, which concluded that the vehicle had been delivered without prior written approval or authorization and without being assigned a customs destination.
In 2017, the Customs Department issued a tax assessment totaling €94,410.95, excluding statutory interest. The amount consisted of €74,494.34 in excise taxes, €11,333.79 in VAT, and €8,582.82 in administrative fees.
During the review of the request for reconsideration, statements were taken, including from officials of the Port Authority, who maintained that the delivery of the car was lawful and justified. The person named as the recipient, however, stated that he had never been in possession of the vehicle and had never picked it up from the port of Limassol.
The Administrative Court of Appeals ruled that the court of first instance had failed to provide the necessary legal reasoning for its key findings. As it states, “the first-instance decision did not include […] the legal reasoning necessary for review on appeal,” both with regard to the finding of “omission” by the Port Authority and with regard to whether this omission was “intentional.”
In particular, the Court of Appeals notes that the trial court did not sufficiently examine the Port Authority’s argument that in 2013 the Customs Department had granted approval for the destruction of the originaldocuments. As stated in the decision, it was not examined whether this “by possibly thereby preventing the Respondent/Appellant from producing such documents, had she had them,” affected the issue of the burden of proof regarding the existence of an omission.
At the same time, the Court of Appeals ruled that it should have been examined whether, with regard to the Port Authority’s letter in 2009, “all the evidence requested at that time was submitted or not,” as well as whether the re-examination and imposition of the claim were permissible from the outset, taking into account the approval to destroy the documents and the time that had elapsed.
The Court of Appeals also ruled that there was insufficient justification for the trial court’s finding that the omission was not intentional, since, as it noted, there was a lack of “the reasoning demonstrating consideration and weighing of the key arguments” of both sides, including the testimony of the person identified as the recipient of the car.
Consequently, the first-instance decision was set aside in its entirety, and the case is being remanded to another judge of the Administrative Court for a new ruling on the Ports Authority’s appeal.
Source: CNA
