Administrative Objection in Customs Code

Aylin Armağan, Serkan Seyhan
{"title":"Administrative Objection in Customs Code","authors":"Aylin Armağan, Serkan Seyhan","doi":"10.26650/pb/ss10.2019.001.071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Article 242 of the Customs Code under the section “Objection”, objections against the administrative decisions customs tax and penalties and the administrative decisions are regulated. This administrative appeal contained in the Customs Law Act is generally accepted as a mandatory administrative objection in the case-law of the higher courts, in the administrative practice and in academic studies on this subject. When the secondary legislation on the said provision is examined, it is understood that this practice contradicts both the basic principles of administrative jurisdiction and the fundamental human rights. Thus this administrative application affects the taxpayer’s right to access to court directly. Property right of the taxpayer is also affected inderectly because of the interest of default the extended administrative and legal process may cause. As a result of this study, the conclusion that the existing provision has been misjudged by the administrative and judicial bodies. It is accepted as a mandatory way yet the regulation in the Customs Code clearly shows a discretionary application path. Subsequently, the reference to Article 10 of the Administrative Procedure Code as the source of the regulations in the secondary legislation relating to the provision is wrong in our opinion. Because in act 10 of this code, is an provison for situations where administrative bodies does not establish a procedure. However, this administrative objection contained in the Customs Code only can be made against an administrative action by the customs administration. In the light of these findings, it is emphasized that the fundamental rights of individuals may be violated. Because the prolongation of the administrative objection, the right to access to the court of the taxpayers is violated.","PeriodicalId":313557,"journal":{"name":"34. International Public Finance Conference","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"34. International Public Finance Conference","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26650/pb/ss10.2019.001.071","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In Article 242 of the Customs Code under the section “Objection”, objections against the administrative decisions customs tax and penalties and the administrative decisions are regulated. This administrative appeal contained in the Customs Law Act is generally accepted as a mandatory administrative objection in the case-law of the higher courts, in the administrative practice and in academic studies on this subject. When the secondary legislation on the said provision is examined, it is understood that this practice contradicts both the basic principles of administrative jurisdiction and the fundamental human rights. Thus this administrative application affects the taxpayer’s right to access to court directly. Property right of the taxpayer is also affected inderectly because of the interest of default the extended administrative and legal process may cause. As a result of this study, the conclusion that the existing provision has been misjudged by the administrative and judicial bodies. It is accepted as a mandatory way yet the regulation in the Customs Code clearly shows a discretionary application path. Subsequently, the reference to Article 10 of the Administrative Procedure Code as the source of the regulations in the secondary legislation relating to the provision is wrong in our opinion. Because in act 10 of this code, is an provison for situations where administrative bodies does not establish a procedure. However, this administrative objection contained in the Customs Code only can be made against an administrative action by the customs administration. In the light of these findings, it is emphasized that the fundamental rights of individuals may be violated. Because the prolongation of the administrative objection, the right to access to the court of the taxpayers is violated.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
海关法典中的行政异议
《海关法》第242条“异议”一节规定了对海关税收、处罚行政决定和行政决定的异议。在高等法院的判例法、行政实践和关于这一主题的学术研究中,《海关法》所载的这一行政上诉一般被接受为强制性行政异议。在审查关于上述规定的次级立法时,可以了解到,这种做法既违反行政管辖的基本原则,也违反基本人权。因此,这一行政申请直接影响到纳税人的诉诸法院的权利。由于延长行政和法律程序可能造成的违约利益,纳税人的财产权也受到间接影响。这项研究的结果是,行政和司法机构错误地判断了现有的规定。它被认为是一种强制性的方式,但《海关法》中的规定明确显示了一种自由裁量的适用路径。随后,我们认为二级立法中将《行政程序法》第10条作为该条款规定的渊源是错误的。因为在本法典第10条中,对行政机关未建立程序的情况作出了规定。但是,《海关法》所载的行政异议只能针对海关行政机关的行政行为提出。根据这些调查结果,强调个人的基本权利可能受到侵犯。由于行政异议期限的延长,纳税人向法院申诉的权利受到侵犯。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Regional Inequalities in European Union and Potential Impacts of European Union Membership Process on Regional Disparities in Turkey An Evaluation on Social State Understanding and Turkey An Analysis on the Relationship Between Fuel Taxes and Fuel Consumption and Current Deficit: a Case of Turkey Characteristics of Plastic Bag Fee and the Evaluation of This Fee by Means of Fiscal and Environmental Policy Financial Analysis of the Political Property of Ni̇zâmül Mülk
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1