Dimme wrote:
If not, how is it different from the cases described previously?
They didn’t get caught! ;-)
Seriously: Bringing valuable goods (above the respective value thresholds) across the border w/o paying duties is simply a crime – and therefore not worth to discuss. It’s probably notable that recently there have been some cases where either the Swiss or German customs asked for receipts significantly after the (first) import. There’s that infamous fellow that was stopped by police at a routine check and answered “I don’t need to pay duties because I bought the Rolex on my last visit and already brought it to Germany” (W/o paying duties…).
The case discussed here is much more complex: The core question is not if you have to pay something if you import a plane, it is “when does the plane account as imported”. It is the current legal opinion of the German customs office, that one landing of a Swiss airplane on the “wrong” airfield in Germany can already constitute a taxable import of the plane.
Malibuflyer wrote:
It is the current legal opinion of the German customs office, that one landing of a Swiss airplane on the “wrong” airfield in Germany can already constitute a taxable import of the plane.
To me that sounds simply like a (additional) punishment for not following customs rules. Has it been tried in court? AFAIU the similar case with a car being driven through a strip of Swiss territory ended up with the customs office having to retract.
Airborne_Again wrote:
To me that sounds simply like a (additional) punishment for not following customs rules.
It is not a simple as that – but let’s not repeat the entire thread
Airborne_Again wrote:
Has it been tried in court?
The whole idea of AOPA collecting money is to finance a trial along the different levels of courts.
Malibuflyer wrote:
It is the current legal opinion of the German customs office, that one landing of a Swiss airplane on the “wrong” airfield in Germany can already constitute a taxable import of the plane.
As A_A mentioned that simply can’t be the definition of the rules? so it’s an abuse of power or extra punishment or something fishy with the OP case 
there are zillions of reasons why one may land in the “wrong airport” while flying, single engine is an obvious one !
I hope the rules imply some exemption of VAT import if one crashes? the last thing one want is to pay taxes after they are dead or after they write off their aircraft
Malibuflyer wrote:
Let’s celebrate that most of geographic Europe is!
Absolutely!
Too bad the same ancient times will come back regarding the UK :(
Malibuflyer wrote:
The whole idea of AOPA collecting money is to finance a trial along the different levels of courts.
No. The verdict is final, the fine as well and all they tried to do with this collection is to pay at least part of the fine to stop the guy to go bancrupt.
Before the verdict was reached, AOPA tried to take this to court and ran out of money before reaching the upper levels of your court system.
The case as it stands is by far not as simple as you put it. The fact is, the pilot got bad information from people who should know better and was even told not to call customs when a call to them would probably have solved the issue. The other fact is, that German customs has known to produce such stuff for ever and in some cases were given a knock on their greedy fingers while other people ran out of money before the courts could be reached to challenge this.
IMHO, this whole affair is a total affront against free movement according to ICAO. Therefore, I actually think this should be taken care of by bringing the case to an international court. But that takes money and time, which most people don’t have.
The simple “Rule” for Germany and non EU GA therefore is: Only use airports which have a full non ppr customs/Immigration status or such, where you are intimately familiar with the procedures. Particularly, if you are not re-departing back to outside the EU from the same field and without any other flight in between.
As written further back, it is an appalling case of injustice, which would have failed in any country which has a properly functioning justice system – for the simple reason that the pilot did carry out what a reasonable person would regard as sufficient due diligence, from the airport itself.
Whether the defendant runs out of money on the way up the judicial food chain is another matter. International actions are always ultra expensive because you have to instruct a local lawyer.
In the UK, this would have failed (the pilot would have won) although perhaps not at the first step. He would have needed a decent lawyer, so say £10k-20k.
How much did AOPA spend before running out?
Customs in any country are pretty much a law onto themselves. I am not familiar with the intricacies of the Swiss – EU treaties, but this should have been thrown out by the lowest court if only for the simple reason that there was no intent to leave the airplane in Germany.
Ibra wrote:
As A_A mentioned that simply can’t be the definition of the rules? so it’s an abuse of power or extra punishment or something fishy with the OP case there are zillions of reasons why one may land in the “wrong airport” while flying, single engine is an obvious one !
The definition of the rules is quite clear. And before everyone gets too excited: No, it is absolutely clear that in case of emergency you do not have to pay any customs.
What is also clear: In this specific case the pilot did not comply with the rules. He did not even pretend to have complied. His defense was not “but I complied” but rather “but I asked people who should know the procedure and they told me the wrong procedure” (what Mooney calls “people who should know better”).
The judge asked: “Did you ask people who are responsible for that (i.e. the customs office)?” “No!” “So I don’t care whom you asked”.
If he really thinks that the guy at the airport he asked for the procedure is responsible to actually know, he should file a civic case for damages against this person. He didn’t for a good reason.
It’s actually part of the German “Flugleiter-Schizophrenia”: “He must not telly me anything but if he allows me to do something I like he is god”
Sorry, but that is very consistent with the rest of German tax law: It doesn’t matter if your Banker (even if he should know) tells you how something is taxed. You have to pay the tax anyways if the administration thinks differently. If you want a binding statement how a certain procedure is handled you have to ask the authority.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
The simple “Rule” for Germany and non EU GA therefore is: Only use airports which have a full non ppr customs/Immigration status or such, where you are intimately familiar with the procedures. Particularly, if you are not re-departing back to outside the EU from the same field and without any other flight in between.
Fully agree. Or even simpler: Stick to the rules unless you are extremely sure you know what you are doing when you bend the rules!
The judge asked: “Did you ask people who are responsible for that (i.e. the customs office)?” “No!” “So I don’t care whom you asked”.
Fortunately the UK has a general defence of due diligence The above would not work, because to require a pilot to obtain a preflight briefing from a tax office is ridiculous.
This is no better than applying import duty to fuel in one’s tanks, as happens in say Calcutta, and there is dealt with by bribing the local officials.
However, turning this around, this is one reason why the UK (and France) has much more CV19 spread than Germany.
