Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Crowdfunding launched by German/Swiss AOPAs to help rescue a retired pilot from bankruptcy due to German customs decision

Some red type is therefore inevitable to protect the common market.

I’m not sure. It may well be true that the EU bloc can only protect certain vested interests by abridging the right of its citizens to trade with the rest of the world. But I’m by no means sure that such protectionism is inevitable or even desirable for the EU population as a whole.

If you enter the EU from outside of the EU that needs to be done via an official point of entry. (On both sides)

I don’t see why it needs to be so in any jurisdiction in which private aerodrome and light aircraft owners are trusted to be part of the border surveillance system. For instance, HM Government writes:

Non-Customs & Excise designated airfields/airports (i.e. smaller aerodromes and air strips receiving general aviation flights) to and from EU countries will require a Certificate of Agreement (CoA) in order to operate legally once the transition period has ended. These locations will be covered by a ‘Blanket’ CoA for 18 months from 1 Jan 2021 and will be able to continue to handle general aviation flights (limited passengers, no Merchandise in Baggage, no freight) from the EU until 30 June 2022. During which time Border Force will visit these locations to discuss what needs to be put in place to have them operating under a standard, individual CoA before 1 July 2022.

Glenswinton, SW Scotland, United Kingdom

172driver wrote:

Every civilized country I’m aware of has in its legal system a concept called Proportionality

If we are talking about tax laws and use this criteria, there are not many “civilized” countries in the world. Typically there is no rule of proportionality in tax laws – and even if it was the argument that you do not have to pay import taxes because it is a lot of money for you (while it is not so much money compared to the value of the good) is a very special interpretation of disproportionality.

172driver wrote:

The issue here is that the guy did NOT import the airplane

Every movement of a good into another tax area is an import.

But obviously there is an exception: If you import the good temporarily, for certain goods and under certain conditions it is exempt from import taxes. That requires according to the law that you declare this temporary import before you move the good into the other area.

And then there even is an exception from the last rule: If the good is a mean of transportation and the import is done via an official point of entry, you do not have to declare that temporary import beforehand.

So if you fly your plane from Switzerland to Germany under this regulation, you are already using an exception of an exception. But now the pilot thought he is even more clever than this and there is an exception from the exception from the exception – which there isn’t. It is not at all disproportional if the tax authorities insist that there already have been enough exceptions

T28 wrote:

based on evidence from the German Customs

No – you have not shown any evidence – just omisisions and misinterpretations of text. (One last try):

Passieren einer Zollstelle ohne getrennte Kontrollausgänge
Benutzen des grünen Ausgangs bei Flughäfen oder Häfen

So you need to use an official customs point of entry, unless:

bei Waren, die von der Beförderungspflicht befreit sind, also nicht zur Zollstelle befördert werden müssen:
einfaches Überschreiten der Grenze des Zollgebietes der Europäischen Union (Verbringen über die sogenannte “grüne Grenze”)

… you transport goods that are exempt from the burden to be transported to the customs office. Which these are is defined in §5 of German “Zollverordnung” (ZollV) that says in (1)1.(g) explicitly “Airplanes … witch land on an airfield specially designated by the customs authorities” (These are on Peters “second list”)
Explicitly not that you can land on any airfield.

So gelten beispielsweise folgende Waren als auf die oben beschriebene Art und Weise angemeldet:

By this method you can implicitly declare, e.g. – again no word of an exception.

T28 wrote:

All you have come up with is opinion,

This is not opinion – it is simply impossible to show evidence, that a certain exception not existing – rather than showing that every single “evidence” you cite that this exception does exist is either manipulated by leaving out half sentences or a misreading of German language or both….

Last Edited by Malibuflyer at 20 Oct 21:49
Germany

Sebastian_G wrote:

So we can not be sure this was in fact not the frist time this pilot came into conflict with customs…

Is there a way to find out?
It could explain a lot of things.

always learning
LO__, Austria

Not really, because in any functioning justice system each case is decided on its own merits.

The sentence may vary if the defendant has a “previous”. For example you may get more time in jail, but it is completely wrong to one day decide that you “imported” an aircraft while previously you didn’t.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Not really, because in any functioning justice system each case is decided on its own merits.

It’s very interesting what you learn about “any functional justice systems” or even “any civilized country” in this thread. In all functional justice systems I know (obviously all not part of “any”) it is common practice to not only look at the one individual case but also at the people involved and their history.

Peter wrote:

but it is completely wrong to one day decide that you “imported” an aircraft while previously you didn’t.

Absolutely! But it would not be as wrong if first time you import an airplane by accident they do not insist of paying the taxes (giving you the opportunity to reverse your mistake even if the law does not force this) while the next time you import an aircraft you can no longer pledge it was again by accident.

As many have said in this thread already: We don’t know if there is a history with this pilot – but from all one could read it seems to be part of the story that the pilot (and or his lawyers) was more interested in “being right” (although he clearly was not) rather than finding a pragmatic solution.
It’s not clear if this is the case and it’s not clear if such a pragmatic solution could have been found – but the case smells like it.

Germany

If I was living in Switzerland I might long for the old Carnet system. It would still involve official ports of entry and exit to get the carnet stamped at each border crossing plus bonded guarantees that if those stamps were not there that someone would pay the import duties. But I would know where I stood, legally speaking :)

France

Malibuflyer wrote:

“ENTRY INTO OR EXIT FROM THE TERRITORY OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF
GERMANY IS ONLY PERMITTED VIA THE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS AND VIA THE
AERODROMES AUTHORIZED BY CUSTOMS AND FEDERAL POLICE.”
To be fair, you need to add that this NOTAM also includes the following:
“The obligation to use an airport with customs service does not apply for flights from/to other European union member states. The obligation to use an airport with passport service does not apply for flights from/to other Schengen area states.”

This means, before readers of this topic get insecure, flights between national airports are still possible when you fly from/to an EU and Schengen member country. In other words: Flying from France into Germany is allowed at any small airfield.

In other cases I – unfortunately – must agree with you. The rules in Germany are quite clear that you must use an official border crossing point, as soon as you cross an external EU and/or Schengen-border. The video I posted here is a good example of this. The use of a green border can cause import-issues with an old car as well. However, in this particular example, customs changed their minds after the intervention of German TV.

Peter wrote:
As another example, I landed at Aosta recently.
I thought you still have to fly to Aosta this winter?
Last Edited by Frans at 21 Oct 12:49
Switzerland

However, in this particular example, customs changed their minds after the intervention of German TV.

Would the German police allow someone to drive at 300km/h in a 100km/h limit if German TV supported it?

I don’t think so, so this was a piece of opportunistic “interpretation” by the Customs officers, possible because GA is below the national TV “radar”. The pilot should have been busted for using a non-Customs airport, not for the import VAT on the plane. It totally does not follow that not using a Customs airport must lead to the inbound flight constituting a non declaration of imported goods! The two aspects are totally unrelated.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Malibuflyer wrote:

And btw just to get out of this “it’s only against aviation” notion: Please do not forget that the pilot was not the owner of the airplane but rented it from an aero club

Now I really do find this whole thing incredibly bizarre !!

I could understand the guy being fined and sent on his way for using the wrong airport… What I cant understand why the German Customs guys absolutely decided to chase the guy for Import VAT/Duty etc. – Especially if it is not even his aeroplane, but that of an aeroclub?? That is completely nuts, because if he’s rented the aeroplane isnt it bloody obvious that he is intending to only temporarily enter the country with it and will leave again to take it back????

Regards, SD..

skydriller wrote:

isnt it bloody obvious that he is intending to only temporarily enter the country with it and will leave again to take it back????

I also think this is crazy but that is the point to understand. Customs does not care what you do with the goods later on. If you import them you pay that second. If the product is destroyed 5min later you still have to pay even though you never used it. Customs free temporary import is only possible if certain procedures are observed. Like this aircraft thing or for example the Carnet ATA for other purposes. All this has to be done in advance.

Through my professional experience I did learn that customs needs to be taken much more seriouly than many people do as they feel they can (before COVID) travel so freely. I used to work for an event company and you would would not believe how much hassle our annual Swiss stop was every year. They wanted the exact weight and origine of the cotton for T-shirts used during the event and the list goes on.

www.ing-golze.de
EDAZ
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top