The exchange on the previous page shows how much confusion there is in general about how customs works, and not just for airplanes. Citizenship is not really relevant. Residency is. For aircraft, registration is not really relevant per se, but rather what VAT has been paid. A foreign registered aircraft flown by a local resident needs to have VAT paid.
@skydriller, I am a Swiss resident and I own and fly an N-reg aircraft based in Switzerland, since 1996. I have zero concerns about returning home every time I leave the country. I paid Swiss VAT on first entry into Switzerland so Swiss customs is happy.
This is also a trap for car drivers. There is some enlightening information on the Swiss customs web site for Swiss residents driving an auto with foreign licence plates into Switzerland (e.g. a friend‘s car with German plates):
Using an uncleared vehicle temporarily in Switzerland
I wonder if this has something to do with it. I had a look at the Swedish AIP, and it included something I just didn’t understand, not even the Swedish text 
It was a special procedures for aircraft coming from Norway or Island. From the Swedish AIP:
There should be no obligation to declare the aircraft for release for free circulation or any other customs approved treatment
What is this all about? “obligation to declare the aircraft the aircraft for free circulation” ??? Googled and came to this- place.
Once an aircraft is in free circulation in the EU many people assume that “that’s it, the aircraft may come and go in EU territory as it pleases”. For anyone who is not familiar with “free circulation” this is a term referring to an aircraft’s status within EU territory. It means that the aircraft was either manufactured in the EU, or was imported fully into the EU, i.e. any import Customs duties due were paid in full, including import VAT.
The truth, as ever, is not quite so simple. Normally when goods leave the EU this is treated as an export for Customs and VAT purposes. Ordinarily goods are removed by freight transport or similar, but as aircraft are able to leave from and return to the EU under their own power – and do so frequently – it would be much harder to keep track of all these exports and re-imports. Consequently when a free circulation aircraft leaves the EU this is simply treated as a “deemed export”, i.e. it is acknowledged to be technically an export but export paperwork is not required each time the aircraft moves. As this tends to be a seamless process many readers will not normally aware that an “export” has even occurred.
When the aircraft returns this would normally require a re-import but obviously this is not practicable, and nor should it be necessary when all the normal customs procedures have already been followed once. There is therefore a Customs relief procedure in place known as Returned Goods Relief, or RGR, that allows for a seamless return to the EU with the retention of the aircraft’s existing free circulation status. However RGR only applies under certain conditions.
There are ways that an aircraft may unintentionally lose its free circulation status while it is outside EU territory. For example if the aircraft is physically kept outside the EU for three years or more there is no longer a right to return under RGR, and effectively its free circulation status has been lost. The same may also happen if the aircraft is sold or the operator replaced while the aircraft is located outside the EU.
It is important to be fully aware of the aircraft’s EU status when you are looking to buy or make changes to the operation of an aircraft, particularly if the aircraft spends time outside of EU territory. This is something we can check for you on each aircraft and advise the best way forward.
This makes it somewhat clearer. At least it is clear that something of this nature may create a situation where the aircraft lose it’s “free circulation” status. Export and import are two very different things. Stuff may be imported without being properly exported etc.
OK; this is all a bit clearer now.
Export for > 3 years to lose VAT paid status… makes sense relative to cases I heard of. Not many people willing to write up their encounters
So what happened to this Swiss pilot in Germany? We can assume the plane was not EU VAT paid. Then the obvious Q is:
How can any Swiss pilot, or any non EU pilot, fly to the EU?
The vast majority of non EU based planes are not EU VAT paid.
I still think the residency is the key here. If by „Swiss pilot“ you mean Swiss resident, then the customs rules are those applying to a visitor, rather than a returning resident. In general, a visitor can bring personal goods for use within the country that will then leave the country with her. This would be the same as for driving into the EU, wrt the car. As long as the aircraft/car is a possession of the driver (or in the case of a rental, VAT-paid in the same country as the driver residency, normally but esp. for aircraft not necessarily as implied by registration).
I may be a bit thick this morning but what prevents vast numbers of non EU pilots getting busted when they land in the EU?
I am sure the vast majority of them are not EU VAT paid and if they were they either don’t have the proof (most owners lose papers like that, even if they claim upon sale that they had them) or the plane was exported for > 3 years so lost the status).
International aviation could not work in such an atmosphere.
N-regs especially would be busted everywhere all the time. Only a smart Customs person would know a Socata will be VAT paid unless exported out of the EU.
If you reside in the UK and have proof that you are the aircraft owner, then you don‘t have to pay EU VAT because you are entering with your possessions, incl aircraft, and will leave with same.
The thread subject case is about entering the EU without first landing at an approved airfield with customs notification/approval/control. In that case, if the pilot had properly (according to customs rules) entered the EU, he would not have had to pay any VAT.
OK; thank you.
It does seem a case of blatent entrapment to say that the plane was not eligible for the ICAO “no harrassment” concession because it landed at a non customs airfield.
That’s the way it is, and has always been with customs…, anywhere. A terrible, archaic institution.
In customs terms they always have to be in a position to exercise “customs control”, hence they force you to use certain nominated aerodromes where they can, in theory, exercise this control. And even if they don’t plan on coming, they won’t tell because then you could argue that you could go elsewhere…
There is little to take away from this, other than: get on with it, be very careful when you have to deal with customs, and enjoy the more pleasant aspects of life.
Well, for some people it may well be a reason to stop flying to these aerodromes or into countries where customs are known to abuse their power. 25 k will ruin most of us. Or maybe only me, I don´t know.
The fact is, this situation with Germany is unacceptable. It needs to be challenged in high court, up to the EU courts. But nobody has the means to do that as it is outpriced, e.g. it would require someone willing to throw a couple of millions to get a defendable verdict.
Stuff like that is one more nail in the coffin of GA.
