Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HAO 13.6.2002 02/0652/7 AI generated

Administrative court dismissed customs company's appeal regarding fines for violating vehicle marking regulations.

Case Number Helsingin HAO 13.6.2002 02/0652/7
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court dismissed the customs company's appeal against two fines imposed for violating vehicle marking regulations under the Customs Act. The company had repeatedly failed to affix approved seals to its transport vehicles as required by EU regulations and customs directives. The court upheld the fines because the company knowingly allowed drivers to operate vehicles without the mandatory official seals.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Customs Act 1466/94 s. 32; Customs Code (EC) No 2454/93 Art. 398: A customs company remains liable for fines when its drivers fail to affix required official seals to vehicles, even if the company claims the seals were not under its direct control.

Keywords

AI generated
Customs Act liability vehicle marking regulations official seals requirement administrative fines customs compliance

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Customs Act 1466/94 s. 32
AI generated
admin_2017_eastern-finland__296
Administrative court dismissed penalty due to expired three-year statute of limitations for vehicle tax violation.
kho-precedent_2000_70
Supreme Administrative Court upheld fine but remanded case for specific meter reading correction guidelines.
kho-precedent_2001_51
Fines for incorrect customs classification dismissed against customs broker due to lack of fault evidence.
kho-precedent_2016_152
Supreme Administrative Court dismissed customs duty claim against buyer due to lack of carrier authorization.
admin_2010_helsinki__1582
Administrative court dismissed fine under customs law section 32 for premature export of goods.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Tullipiiri oli määrännyt kahdella veloituspäätöksellään yhtiölle tullilain 32 §:n nojalla virhemaksut sinetöintimääräysten rikkomisen vuoksi. Yhtiö oli rikkonut tulliviranomaisten määräyksiä, jotka koskevat kuljetusvälineiden varustamista tulliviranomaisten hyväksymillä erikoismallisilla sineteillä. Yhtiön oli tullut kiinnittää sanotut sinetit toimiessaan tullikoodeksin soveltamisasetuksen (ETY) N:o 2454/93 398 artiklassa tarkoitettuna hyväksyttynä lähettäjänä. Tullin tekemissä tarkastuksissa oli toistuvasti havaittu kuljettajien hallusta yhtiön lupaan perustuvia sinettejä.

Tullilaki 32 § 1 mom (1466/94)