Kendelse af 25-08-2016 - indlagt i TaxCons database den 30-09-2016

SKAT har opkrævet told på 50.000 kr. og importmoms på 137.500 kr., dvs. i alt 187.500 kr., af 10.179 kg uspecificeret stykgods, der blev indført fra Norge til Danmark uden at blive frembudt for toldmyndighederne.

Landsskatteretten stadfæster SKATs afgørelse.

Faktiske oplysninger

Lastbilen med det polske registreringsnummeret [reg.nr.1] ankom den 27. august 2014 med færgen ”[x1]” fra [by1] i Norge til [by2] i Danmark.

Det polske firma [virksomhed1] (herefter benævnt klageren) var ifølge færgens manifest ansvarlig transportør af lastbilen.

Lastbilens fragt bestod ifølge færgens manifest af 10.179 kg ”stykgods”.

Af SKATs toldrapport af 27. august 2014 fremgår, at chaufføren ved navn [person1] ved ankomsten til [by2] kom ind i toldekspeditionen, men ikke henvendte sig til personalet, og at han smed lastbilsdeklarationen i en kasse til tomme sedler og gik uden at gøre yderligere.

SKATs afgørelse

SKAT har truffet afgørelse om at opkræve told på 50.000 kr. og importmoms på 137.500 kr., dvs. i alt 187.500 kr., af det indførte stykgods på 10.179 kg.

Afgørelsen er begrundet således:

Lorry entering EU without application to the customsoffice at the external border ([reg.nr.1])

Customs Clearance, [by2], gave you in a letter dated 11. September a time limit of 30 days to prove that the goods - which arrived to [by2] with the ferry ”[x1]” from [by1] in Norway - was followed by a transit declaration or declared under a customs procedure e.g. free circulation/free consumption in EU or exportation, and in a etter dated 22. October 2014 we ask your company to send us the opinion of your company concerning the drafted statement of claim.

As the time limit now has expired and we have not received the above­mentioned documentation, Customs Clearance, [by2] collect form your company duty and VAT, according to article 38 to 41, 202 and 215 in the Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913 of 12. October 1992.

Following amount is collecting:

For further reasons we refer to the enclosed final statement of claim.”

I den tilhørende sagsfremstilling har SKAT anført:

”As the responsible carrier it is an obligation of your company to apply to the customs office at the external border of the EU when you arrive from a third country (Norway) into the customs territory of the Community according to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12. October 1992, with later changes, and according to the Danish Customs law § 18 and § 79, the first subparagraph, no 3 and 4.

If the goods are accompanied by a transit declaration the carrier is legally bound to fill in a transit advice note to the customs authorities at the external border of EU according to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2. July 1993, art. 359.

Your company is responsible for paying duty and VAT unless it is proved that the goods in question has been customs cleared according to § 31 in the Danish law ”Bekendtgørelse om toldbehandling BEK no. 403 from 3. Maj 2012”.

If goods are imported into EU in a non-fulfilment way we have the duty to collect customs debt according to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913 of 12. October 1992, articles 38 to 41 and article 202 and 215.

If an import declaration has not been delivered to Customs we have the right to make a declaration ourselves either on a statistical basis or on a rough estimated basis to fix customs value and customs debt according to The Danish Customs law, § 13, no 2.

The customs value is fixed to 500.000 DKK

Duty is fixed to 10 %.”

Klagerens opfattelse

Klageren har nedlagt påstand om, at opkrævningen af beløbet på 187.500 kr. skal nedsættes til 0 kr.

Subsidiært har klageren nedlagt påstand om, at betalingen af beløbet opdeles i månedlige rater.

Til støtte for klagen er anført:

”With this letter I hereby lodge an appeal against the decision on a lorry entering the EU without application to the customs office at the external border ([reg.nr.1]) and kindly ask for the remission of the penalty of 180 000 Danish kroner, in the event that the Court does not decide on the penalty remission, I kindly ask to divide it into installments paid monthly in the amount of 100 Danish kroner each.

The Customs of Denmark has imposed on me a penalty in the amount of 180 000 Danish kroner. The reason for the penalty was no notification of goods in my car at the entry into Denmark.

Circumstances of the case are as follows. My friend, permanently settled in Norway, asked me take his Mercedes car, registration plates R I 60588 to Poland for it to undergo major renovation. I agreed. The transfer was a courtesy, and I received no compensation for it. On that day, I entered the territory of Denmark, going from Norway, and crossed the Baltic Sea to get to Poland. There, I left the friend’s car in a garage. Upon completion of the renovation, the friend went to Poland, took the car and went back to Norway.

I did not report the friend’s car on the Norwegian - Danish border because I did not realize that I had such an obligation. Customs regulations of Denmark on the official website are only available in Danish, and I do not speak Danish. I was looking for information about customs regulations on the website of the Embassy of Denmark in Poland, but such information is not there. So I decided to act under Polish law, which is compatible with the EU law, and as I thought applies to other Member States of the European Union, and therefore also Denmark. Therefore, I have decided that the car transport was for personal use, because the car was not for sale or lease, and was only to be renovated. Once again I want to emphasize that the car left the territory of the European Union after the repair (the friend took to Norway). I understood that if the car was to temporarily stay on the Polish territory, it was not subject to any tax. After all, if the car had been driven across the Norwegian - Danish border on its own wheels and not on a trailer, it would not have been taxable.

Once again, I want to assure you that I did not realize that in such a situation it was my duty to report the car transported on a trailer to the Customs Office. I did not want to deceive any office in Denmark. In addition to the friend’s car I did not transfer any other goods. Since I could not find any official information about the rules in force at the Norwegian - Danish border, I followed the rules that apply in the European Union, and I found that was a personal transport. And for these reasons, I kindly ask for the redemption of the penalty imposed on me.

If, however, the Court considered that there are no grounds for the remission of the penalty, I kindly ask you to divide it into installments.

At the moment I run a business, but my income does not allow me to pay such a high one­ time penalty. In addition to the normal fees related to business activities such as taxes, social insurance, operating costs I have yet to pay car leasing payments in the amount of 2250 PLN month. The amount of my income for 2014 is 26 119 PLN, which is equivalent to about 46 400 DKK. What is more, the situation on the transport market is still getting worse, due to the embargo of the Russian market we have lost a lot of orders. The situation is so bad that the Mayor of Plock decided to divide my tax of means of transport into installment. That is why I kindly ask you to divide the penalty into installments as well. This solution would save me from bankruptcy and allow me to continue to run the company. The analysis of my financial situation shows that I would be able to pay the penalty in monthly installments in the amount of 1000 DKK.”

Landsskatterettens afgørelse

Af EU’s dagældende toldkodeks (Rådets forordning nr. 2913 af 12. oktober 1992 med senere ændringer), art. 38 og 40 fremgår, at varer, der føres ind i EU’s toldområde, omgående skal føres til det af toldmyndighederne anviste toldsted og frembydes for toldmyndighederne.

Af den dagældende toldkodeks art. 202 fremgår, at toldskyld opstår, når importafgiftspligtige varer føres ind i EU’s toldområde på ikke forskriftsmæssig måde. Af art. 215 fremgår, at toldskylden opstår på det sted, hvor omstændighederne, der er årsag til toldskyldens opståen, indtræffer.

Af toldlovens § 18 fremgår, at førere af befordringsmidler ved ankomst til det danske toldområde fra et tredjeland skal anmelde sig til toldmyndighederne (SKAT).

Af toldlovens § 13, stk. 2, fremgår, at hvis fristen for angivelse til fortoldning er overskredet, kan toldmyndighederne (SKAT) ansætte told og afgifter på grundlag af en skønsmæssigt ansat mængde eller værdi og efter de satser, der var gældende den dag, hvor varerne senest kunne være angivet rettidigt til fortoldning.

Af momslovens § 12, stk. 1, fremgår, at der skal betales importmoms af varer, der indføres til Danmark fra steder uden for EU.

Det fremgår af færgens manifest, at der var en last på 10.179 kg stykgods i lastbilen.

Denne vare/disse varer blev den 27. august 2014 i [by2] indført til EU’s toldområde fra et tredjeland (Norge).

Varen/varerne blev ikke frembudt for toldmyndighederne (SKAT) ved indførslen. Varen/varerne er dermed blevet indført på ikke forskriftsmæssig måde til EU’s toldområde.

Der er dermed opstået toldskyld af varen/varerne, jf. den dagældende toldkodeks art. 202.

Der er endvidere opstået pligt til at betale importmoms af varen/varerne, jf. momslovens § 12, stk. 1.

Da varen/varerne blev indført, uden at varen/varerne blev frembudt for SKAT, har SKAT ikke haft mulighed for at foretage kontrol af, hvad varen/varerne bestod af.

Efter Landsskatterettens opfattelse har klageren ikke dokumenteret, at der var tale om indførsel af en bil.

Den eneste oplysning, der foreligger i sagen, er derfor oplysningen i færgens manifest, hvoraf fremgår, at der er tale om 10.179 kg stykgods uden angivelse af specifikation af, hvad stykgodset bestod af.

På dette grundlag har SKAT med rette ansat toldværdien og toldsatsen skønsmæssigt.

Landsskatteretten kan endvidere tiltræde SKATs skønsmæssige ansættelse af toldværdien til 500.000 kr. og toldsatsen til 10 %.

Der er ingen hjemmel til at yde fritagelse for eller godtgørelse af told og importmoms i et tilfælde som det foreliggende tilfælde.

Ukendskab til reglerne kan heller ikke føre til et andet resultat, idet enhver der indfører varer til Danmark har pligt til at kende såvel EU’s som de danske regler herfor.

Den påklagede afgørelse stadfæstes derfor.

For så vidt angår klagerens subsidiære påstand, der er en anmodning om opdeling af betalingen i månedlige rater bemærkes, at Landsskatteretten ikke kan tage stilling til anmodningen, idet Landsskatteretten kun er klageinstans for SKATs afgørelser.

En sådan anmodning skal behandles af SKAT i 1. instans.

Klagerens anmodning om opdeling af betalingen i månedlige rater er derfor blevet oversendt til SKAT som rette myndighed til at behandle anmodningen.