[ad_1]
After verifying the electronic import declaration, the customs authorities ordered the applicant to pay a definitive anti-dumping duty of EUR 5,482, an import VAT of EUR 1,115, late payment interest and a fine of EUR 663 for the imported fertilizers.
According to the applicant, the imported product (ammonium nitrate fertilizers) should not be subject to the anti-dumping duty and should be classified under another code, as this is denied by the quality certificate, the explanation from Dorogobuzh, as well as the inspection from Klaipeda and Kaunas Technological University Laboratory tests carried out by the Department of Physical and Inorganic Chemistry of the Faculty of Technology.
Eriko Ovcharenko / 15min nuotr./ Pastatas “Agroconcern”
Laboratory tests confirm that the ammonium nitrate content of the fertilizer does not exceed 80%. the total mass of the product.
The court, after examining this administrative case, indicated that the customs authorities had to provide evidence that the goods corresponded to the declared code. In the present case, tests show that ammonium nitrate accounts for less than 80%. no fertilizer masses were provided. The applicant only submitted a quality certificate from the Russian company Dorogobuzh on the composition of the imported fertilizers, ie nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium.
In the absence of reliable evidence from fertilizer samples analyzed in the laboratories of the Klaipėda Inspection and Kaunas University of Technology, Faculty of Chemical Technology, Department of Physical and Inorganic Chemistry, there is no evidence that these fertilizer samples are exactly the same fertilizer Therefore, these conclusions cannot be considered reliable.
The court considered that the documents submitted by the applicant (export declaration, invoices, consignment notes) and the CN code of the goods indicated in them did not contain any binding or mandatory information for the customs of the Republic of Lithuania.
It should be noted that the applicant herself, being diligent and diligent in determining the accuracy of the declared and tax-generating TARIC code, had the right to request a decision on binding tariff information from the customs authorities, but did not exercise that right. This was confirmed at the hearing by the applicant’s representative, arguing that such fertilizers were imported by another company with a similar code and that therefore the applicant also imported fertilizers included in this CN code.
The respondent correctly considered that the applicant’s imports (fertilizers) should be subject to a definitive anti-dumping duty.
After examining the circumstances of the case, the legislation governing the tariff classification of fertilizers based on ammonium nitrate, the explanations of the parties to the proceedings, it was concluded that the defendant was justified in considering that the imports (fertilizers) from the plaintiff should be subject to a definitive anti-dumping duty.
This decision can be appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania within 30 days.
[ad_2]
