@italianjon: Please, don’t get confused by infomation from individual airfields. As described by a few others in this topic before, Schengen has clearly nothing to do with customs. Schengen has to do with immigration and about free movement of people. In Germany, the “Bundespolizei” is responsible for immigration. Customs has only to do with goods and with EU and non-EU. Switzerland is Schengen, but not EU, so you need customs, but don’t need immigration. UK for example is EU, but not Schengen, so you need immigration, but not customs. I can’t make it easier to understand. 
Ibra wrote:
To have “Customs: Nil” and leave any local/special arrangementsThat would be usefull perhaps, but it is not necassary, since the German VFR AIP clearly says at the beginning of the aerodrome-list:
Mentioning this under CUSTOMS is ASKING for misunderstanding and false interpretation.I’ve found following entry/map key in the VFR AIP under AD 2-2 “Notes on the Followng List of Aerodromes” as well:
since the German VFR AIP clearly says at the beginning
Is this one online, or is it secret until you hand over some € ? 
If an individual airport in an AIP says “cust” then that means customs is available, per conditions specified. That is pilot due diligence discharged, no matter how one shakes it.
This particular pilot also got a false assurance from the airport manager and again that is another factor in his favour. The airport should pay a part of the fine, because it is jointly responsible. Of course it won’t. If somebody dug a 1m deep hole right in front of the tower and you taxi into it, the airport won’t pay a penny; they never take responsibility for anything whatsoever, as I well know.
This particular pilot also got a false assurance from the airport manager and again that is another factor in his favour (the airport should pay a part of the fine, because it is jointly responsible).
Not only the airport manager:
The pilot nevertheless demanded that the airfield officer call the police in Würzburg and report the entry. He did this immediately and confirmed credibly that the police had found everything to be in order and legal. Afterwards the flight continued to another destination.
The police said OK to continue his journey. If they had said “stop, call Customs” or even “we don’t know”, the hapless Cessna pilot could have returned to Switzerland scot-free.
Peter wrote:
Is this one online, or is it secret until you hand over some € ?Yeah, you have to pay. Skydemon shows it for ‘just’ £51.64 per year.
I know, paying for an AIP is ridiculous, but Switzerland does the same with their VFR information as well. And for example in Italy, the AIP itself might be free, but you have only the biggest airfields listed. If you want full information of all airfields (including Aviosuperficie and Campo Volo), you have to buy the third party source “Avioportolano”. It’s all not secret, but you have to pay. In Slovakia, AD charts of smaller aerodromes are also missing (AD 2-4), for which you have to pay etc.If an individual airport in an AIP says “cust” then that means customs is available, per conditions specified.No, in the German VFR AIP, “cust” could mean customs and/or immigration, see above.
The police said OK to continue his journey. If they had said “stop, call Customs” or even “we don’t know”, the hapless Cessna pilot could have returned to Switzerland scot-free.In the end, the police is not customs, so they could make a mistake as well. The Swiss guy didn’t brake any rules for which the police could prosecute him, so I can understand the “it’s all OK” statement of the police. I’m not defending the outrageous customs actions, I just want to make clear the powers and reponsibilities of the different authorities. Yes, the police should be better informed, but in the end, the police didn’t did anything wrong from their perspective.
italianjon wrote:
But for some reason I do not think that German customs recognised the Schengen status of Switzerland, or there is another legal document laid over the top. This I trying to find a reliable source. But to support the statement I just made I found this on the Koblenz Airport site: We particularly advert to the compulsory registration of flight to/from switzerland (which is a NON-Schengen country)!English Language Source from Koblenz website
but the German says:
Wir weisen ausdrücklich darauf hin, dass auch Flüge aus der oder in die Schweiz (unabhängig vom Schengener Abkommen) der Zollpflicht unterliegen!German Language Source from Koblenz
This is just ridiculous. They didn’t even bother to have their website properly translated. OK, if you don’t speak German (I do), then you prob90 get the drift of the English version, but claiming that Switzerland is Non-Schengen just beggars belief.
Frans wrote:
the police didn’t did anything wrong from their perspective.
They never do ;)
I am by no means sure that this tax grab by the German authorities is lawful.
Let’s start with Article 24 of the Chicago Convention:
Aircraft on a flight to, from, or across the territory of another contracting State shall be admitted temporarily free of duty, subject to the customs regulations of the State.
And Articles 2 and Annex C of the Istanbul Convention on Temporary Admission, Article 15 of which states:
Each Contracting Party shall reduce to a minimum the customs formalities required in connection with the facilities provided for in this Convention. All regulations concerning such formalities shall be promptly published.
Which the Commission has duly done here:
‘Temporary admission’ allows goods to be brought in temporarily to the Union with total or partial relief from import duty. Examples of where this procedure might be used would be in the case of goods imported for purposes such as exhibiting at a trade fair or taking part in a music show. In some cases the completion of customs formalities is not required (e.g. temporary admission of means of transport).
So there we have it: completion of customs formalities is not required for temporary admission of our aeroplanes into the EU. The German HZA has no lawful authority to require such formalities.
Jacko wrote:
am by no means sure that this tax grab by the German authorities is lawful.
That’s exactly why I think this crowdfunding effort should be directed at a legal challenge, possibly against the state of Germany.
I agree, but before rushing to some as yet unspecified Court, let’s give the European Commission a chance to intervene. That’s their job, and if they decide that a Member State is wrong, they can and do take legal action. They have clever lawyers and deep pockets.
