UPCOMING REVISION OF THE GLCE - first step or missed opportunity?
28 February 2024
On 20 February, the Finance and Budgetary Committee of the Federal Parliament discussed a draft bill to amend the General Law on Customs and Excise (GLCE). In the coming month, the committee will review the draft in a second reading.
This bill is the result of the government's 2020 intention to revise the GLCE, with the aim of creating a modern and efficient customs law. With the elections approaching, the government wants to fulfil this promise at the last minute.
Businesses hoping for a major overhaul of customs criminal law will be disappointed. Despite the lengthy wait, the draft is mostly limited to a cosmetic improvement of the current law and ignores the real problems of customs criminal law. While the draft does undertake to delete some legal provisions, it limits this undertaking to provisions that are simply not applied in practice. Unfortunately, the provisions that are applied and that desperately need clarification or adjustment are left untouched.
The most striking aspect of the draft is the proposal to introduce a new article 266/3. This article should give the administration more possibilities to impose administrative sanctions. This could contribute to more efficient tax collection without the administration always having to resort to the wide range of correctional penalties already provided for under the current law.
For businesses, administrative sanctions are also beneficial. It can provide a solution to common cases where the administration takes a case to the criminal court more for reasons of efficient collection of import duties than from a need to socially punish certain behaviour.
However, the current draft does not go far enough for that. In its current version, article 266/3 would be limited to cases where no customs debt is incurred or where a customs debt of up to EUR 10,000.00 is extinguished. The important cases that businesses are really concerned about are therefore excluded.
Moreover, the new provision also raises legal-technical questions. For instance, it introduces the term "knowingly and intentionally" in the GLCE without the necessary explanation. Also, it may not sufficiently take into account the two-stage appeal right enshrined in European law.
In summary, the current draft is certainly a step in the right direction, but it lacks substance and legal depth. A comprehensive review of Belgian customs criminal law, preferably under academic guidance, is now essential to maintain Belgium's position as a gateway to the EU.
THE PRESUMPTION OF GOOD FAITH
The presumption of good faith. It remains a working point for the Belgian Customs and Excise Administration.
THE IRON FIST OF THE CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATION
I hear from tax lawyers and tax advisors that it is nowadays more difficult than before to reach a fair agreement with tax officials on disputed points in the context of income tax and VAT audits. This appears to be no different in the field of customs and excise duties.
CUSTOMS RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Why is a customs dispute necessary to make companies aware of the importance of complying with customs regulations? I posed this question a few weeks ago to a number of in-house customs experts.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CORRECT DETERMINATION OF THE BASIS FOR THE LEVY OF IMPORT DUTIES
The import of goods into the EU and elsewhere may give rise to the levy of customs duties.
VIOLATION OF CUSTOMS REGULATIONS: AN EXAMPLE FROM PRACTICE
Striking customs news at the start of last summer.
THINK BEFORE YOU START… ALSO IN CUSTOMS AND EXCISE MATTERS
Over the past twenty-two years, I have assisted companies and occasionally private individuals in disputes with the General Administration of Customs and Excise (AAD&A).
