clr/1987/1987_3_47.pdf

(1)Order 188/82imposed three conditions forenjoyment ofthebenefit grantedtherein,namelypermanentsettlementabroad,continuousstayabroad fornolessthan10yearsandrepatriation,ιe re-settlement in Cyprus (loannou ν The Republic

(1986)3 C L R 1263 adopted)

(2)Inthelightoftheauthorities relating tothenotionofpermanent settle mentandonthefactsofthiscaseitwasreasonably open forthe respondent Directortoreach thesubjudice decision Recoursedismissedwithcosts 47 Demetriou v. Republic

(1987)Casesreferred to Razisv TheRepublic

(1979)3CLR 127, Rossidesv TheRepublic

(1984)3 C L R 1482, Matsasv TheRepublic

(1985)3 C LR 54, Mavronichisv TheRepublic

(1985)3 C LR 2301, 5 Constantimdes ν TheRepublic

(1986)3 CL R 822, loannouv TheRepublic

(1986)3 C LR 1263 Recourse. Recourse against the refusal of the respondent to allow the applicant to import a motorvehicle free of duty as a repatriated 10 Cypriot. M. TsangaridesforE. Efstathiou, for the applicant. S. Georghiades, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. 15 KOURRIS J. read the following judgment. By the present recourse theapplicantseeksadeclaration of theCourtthattheact and/or decision of the respondents to refuse to her to import a motor vehicle free of duty, in accordance with the provisions of sub-heading 19 of Item0.1 of theFourth Schedule totheCustoms 20 and Excise DutiesLaw (Law 18/78) isnullandvoid andof nolegal effect whatsoever. On 22/12/1984 the applicant submitted an application to the CustomsandExcise Departmentseeking relief under sub-heading 19 of Item 0.1 of the Fourth Schedule of Law 18/78, on the 25 ground that having been a Cypriot, who, after permanent settle­ ment abroad for acontinuousperiod ofatleast tenyears, returned to Cyprus in order tosettle permanently. The appropriate Authority, after examining all the material before itinrelation totheapplicant's application,decided thather 30 case does not fall within the provisions of the Law and relevant regulations on the ground thather absence from Cyprus was of a temporary nature and did not constitute permanent settlement abroad and rejected theapplication of theapplicantfor the impor­ tation of her motor-carfree of duty (See Appendix 6). 35 48 3C.L.R. Demetriou v. Republic Kourrie 4. Hence thepresent recourse. The matteris governed by the Excise DutiesLaw 18/78, s.ll and Order 188/82 published intheThird Supplement, Part II to the Official Gazette of the Republic of 11thJune, 1982, under 5 Not.17/83.Thesaid Order,insofarasrelevant,readsasfollows:- 10 «Vehicles importedbyCypriotswho after permanentset­ tlement abroad fora continuousperiod of atleast 10 years, return and settle permanently in the Republic, provided that the importationis made within areasonable time since their arrival according tothejudgment ofthe Director. The relief from importduty covers only onevehicle for every family.» The point inissue iswhether the applicant settled abroad per­ manently fora continuous*period ofatleast 10years before she 15 returnedtosettle permanently in Cyprus. The notion of permanent settlement abroad has been explained, interalia, inthe cases ofRazis v. TheRepublic

(1979)3 C.L.R. 127at p.135, Rossides v. TheRepublic

(1984)3 C.L.R. 1482 atp. 1486,Mateasi/. 77jeHept/W/c

(1985)3C.L.R.54atpp. 20 58-62, Mavronichis v. The Republic

(1985)3 C.L.R. 2301,Constantinides v. The Republic

(1986)3 C.L.R. 822and Ioannou v. The Republic, Recourse No.415/85, dated 9/7/86, yet unre­ ported*. Iadopt,with duerespect whatPikis,J.,said intheIoannou case 25 (supra)atp.4 which readsas follows: «InmyjudgmenttheOrderimposedthreeseparateconditions for enjoyment ofthebenefit grantedtherein: 30

1. a)Permanentsettlementabroad,
2. b)Continuousstayabroadfor nolessthan 10years,and
3. c)Repatriationi.e. re-settlementin Cyprus.» Having dealtwith thelegal aspectofthe case, I nowproposeto state inbrief thesalient facts ofthecase which areas follows: The applicantwent toThessaloniki, in1969 for studies and she gratuatedasadentaltechnician(οδοντοτεχνίτης) on 10th April, 35 1973. On 26/5/73 she went toPhiladelphia,U.S.A., who having stayed forsixmonthsworking*asadentaltechnicianfor purposes •Reportedm

(1986)3C.L.R. 1263. 49 Kourris J. Demetriou v. Republic

(1987)of obtaining experience, she returned toThessaloniki on20/1/

1. Itappearsthatshegotengagedtobemarriedandinthesummer of 1974 she visited Cyprustogether with her fiance for holidays andshereturnedtoThessaloniki.SheagainreturnedtoCypruson 5 4/3/80becauseshebecamepregnantandhadaproblematicpregnancy and shewanted tobe near herparents.On 10/8/80 she gavebirthtoamalechildwhichshechristenedinCyprusinthebeginningofFebruary, 1981whereuponshewentbacktoThessaloniki where her husband wasstudying tobecome a doctor atthe 10 University of Thessaloniki. Her husband graduated from the university in 1980 and he stayed for another period of three years—from 1981to1984—tospecializeinabranchofmedicine. TheapplicantreturnedtoCyprustogetherwithherhusbandon 23/6/84tosettlepermanentlyanditisherallegationthatfromA- 15 pril, 1973tillherreturntoCypruson23/6/84shewasworkingas atravellingagentinThessaloniki. Counsel for the applicant contentedk that the applicant has satisfied the requirements of the law because she stayed in Thessaloniki for 11years workingas a travelling agent i.e. from April, 1973 tilt 23/6/84 whereas counsel for the respondent 20 contended thattheapplicantfailed tosatisfy theprovisionsofthe Orderinquestionbecause herstayabroadwasnotofpermanent but of a temporary nature, because she stayed in Thessaloniki waiting for her husband to complete his studies and when her husband completed his studies and his specialization they 25 returned toCyprus. The question which posesfor determination iswhether inthe lightoftheaforesaid casesandonthefactshereinbefore setoutit wasreasonably open fortheDirectoroftheCustomsand Excise Departmenttoreachthesubjudicedecision. «« Inmyjudgmenttheanswerisaffirmative becausetheproperinference tobedrawnfrom thefactsisthatthestayoftheapplicant inThessaloniki wasnotinthesenseofpermanentsettlementbut ofatemporarynaturebecauseshewaswaitingforherhusbandto completehisstudiesintheUniversityofThessalonikiandhisspe-
2. cializationinahospitalandthentoreturntoCyprus. Inthepremises the subjudicedecision isaffirmed and therecourseisherebydismissed.InexcercisingmydiscretionIorderthe 50 3C.L.R. Demetriou v.Republic KourrbJ. applicanttopaycosts.Coststobeassessed bytheRegistrar. Recoursedismissedwith costsagainsttheapplicant. 51