Director of Anti-Smuggling Investigation Department loses lawsuit

The confiscation of a batch of wine worth 3.7 billion VND was groundless, the Director of the Anti-smuggling Investigation Department, General Department of Customs was convicted, and the court rejected the appeal.

Ms. Phan Thi Huong Thuy (authorized representative of the plaintiff) at the appeal court on December 21 - Photo: TL

On December 21, the High People's Court in Hanoi opened an appeal hearing in the lawsuit between the plaintiff, Camellia Trading International INC (Belize), and the Director of the Anti-Smuggling Investigation Department, General Department of Customs.

Previously, Camellia Trading International INC. Company had deposited the entire shipment of wine, including 349 packages, worth 3.7 billion VND, into the bonded warehouse of Sao Bac International Company Limited. Sao Bac Company was authorized to receive the goods, carry out customs declaration procedures, and import the shipment to Hai Phong port.

On the afternoon of June 21, 2013, the entire shipment was imported into the warehouse under the inspection and supervision of Cai Lan Port Customs Branch under the Quang Ninh Provincial Customs Department.

However, the Cai Lan Port Customs Branch later did not complete the procedures to export the shipment from the bonded warehouse for the reason: The Northern Anti-Smuggling Control Team, the Anti-Smuggling Investigation Department, and the General Department of Customs requested to temporarily not complete the procedures to wait for the results of the customs dossier verification of the shipment.

In October 2013, the Anti-Smuggling Investigation Department decided to freeze the shipment, then decided to initiate criminal proceedings and transfer the case to the Ministry of Public Security's Investigation Police Department for handling according to regulations.

However, the Ministry of Public Security's Investigation Police Agency has decided to suspend the investigation of the case, transfer documents and evidence to the Anti-smuggling Investigation Department and the General Department of Customs for administrative handling.

In 2015, the Anti-Smuggling Investigation Department decided to confiscate the entire above shipment on the grounds that the confiscation of administrative violation evidence had an unidentified owner.

After the shipment was confiscated, Camellia Company filed a lawsuit with the Hanoi People's Court and requested the cancellation of two decisions issued by the Director of the Anti-Smuggling Investigation Department because these two decisions violated the company's legitimate rights and interests.

During the litigation process, the authorized representative of the Director of the Anti-Smuggling Investigation Department stated that the decision to confiscate the above shipment was completely within authority and in accordance with regulations.

However, at the first instance trial, the Hanoi People's Court annulled the decision to confiscate the wine batch by the Director of the Anti-Smuggling Investigation Department.

According to the court, after the wine shipment was seized, the plaintiff contacted the General Department of Customs to provide many documents and evidence proving ownership of the shipment.

The wine imported to Vietnam had a clear origin. However, the Anti-Smuggling Investigation Department confiscated the shipment on the grounds that the owner was unknown. According to the court, this decision exceeded its authority and lacked solid grounds.

Therefore, the Hanoi People's Court has declared the entire administrative penalty decision null and void and returned the shipment to Camellia Trading International INC.

After the first instance trial, the Director of the Anti-Smuggling Investigation Department filed an appeal.

At the appeal hearing on December 21, the director of the Anti-Smuggling Investigation Department requested a trial in absentia.

Considering the administrative penalty decision of the Director of the Anti-Smuggling Investigation Department had many violations, the appellate court decided to reject the defendant's appeal and uphold the first instance judgment.

According to Tuoi Tre