Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
In the presented study, the purpose of the article is to identify problematic aspects of the practice of combating customs torts in Ukraine in terms of judicial and administrative consideration of cases of violation of customs rules, as well as to determine the prospective contours of the practical implementation of the legislation on administrative procedure in the activities of customs authorities. The functions of administrative responsibility in the system of customs-delict relations are defined, in particular: a) a preventive (warning) function, which is aimed at encouraging subjects of customs-legal relations to comply with the requirements of customs legislation, preventing the commission of offenses in the future by a person who has already committed a violation customs rules and elimination of the causes and conditions that contribute to the commission of offenses and prevention of the commission of customs offenses by other persons; b) the protective function, which consists in the displacement and liquidation of social relations that do not comply with customs and legal norms; c) a repressive (punitive) function, which is manifested in those adverse consequences, which are reflected in sanctions in accordance with the norms of customs law and which a person experiences as a result of his violation of customs rules; d) the fiscal function, which finds its manifestation in filling the state coffers through fines paid by offenders, sale of confiscated property, etc. The attention is focused on the problematic aspects of administrative consideration of tax payers' complaints against tax notices-decisions of customs authorities. It is proposed to interpret the definition "administrative procedure for violations of customs rules” as a procedure for considering, resolving and appealing an administrative case on violation of customs rules to ensure the realization of the rights, freedoms, and legitimate interests of all participants in customs legal relations and their fulfillment of a set of obligations defined by law.
Shevchuk et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: