clr/1988/1988_3_1143.pdf

(1987)3C I A . 27; Symeou v. TheRepublic

(1987)3C.L.R.332. 10 Recourse. Recourseagainstthedecisionoftherespondents,wherebyit wasdecidedthattheapplicantdidnotqualify asadisabledperson fortheimportationofadutyfreecar. 1143 Eracleousv. Republic

(1988)N.Papaefstathiou, for theapplicant. D.Papadopoulou (Mrs.),fortherespondent. Cur. adv.vult. PIKISJ.readthefollowingjudgment.Guidedbythedecision of the Full Bench in Yiangou v.TheRepublic

(1987)3C.L.R. 5 27 I invited argument on thejusticiability of therecoursewith particularreferencetothecharacterofthedecisionandamenityto reviewit.InYiangouitwasdecidedthatanexecutorydecisionto exemptorwithholdexemptionfrom thepaymentofimportduty upontherepatriationofaCypriotcanonlyariseupontheimpor- 10 tationofthecar.IntheJudgmentoftheCourtthiswasinevitable inviewof theprovisionsof theorderitselfdealing withtheimportation of acar,by repatriated Cypriote,andthelegal frameworkinwhichexecutorydecisionsmaybetakenbytheDirector of Customs.Itwaspointedoutthattheorder(meaningtheorder 15 madeundersection 11

(2)oftheCustomsandExciseDutiesLaw) cannotbutbereadandinterpretedsubject tothedefinition ofthe word 'import'tobefound insection 2of thelawconfined tothe bringingofgoodsintotheRepublicbyseaorair. Thedecision in Yiangou wasfollowed inSymeouv.TheRe- 20 public

(1987)3C.L.R. 332 whereit wasobserved "Under the relevant provisions of the Customs and Excise Duties Law,an executorydecisionwithregardtothepaymentofimportduty,can onlycomeintobeingontheimportationofthegoods". In thiscaseanopinion of theauthoritieswassoughtwhether 25 applicantqualified asadisabledpersonandtherightifanyaccruingthereupon toimport acarfreeof duty.Undertheprovisions oftherelevantorder,madeundersection 11 sub-section2of the CustomsLegislation,adisabledpersondulycertified tobeincapacitatedbyamedicalboardisentitledtoimportfreeofdutyacar 30 subjecttoameanstestappliedbytheMinisterofFinance.Counselfor theRepublic submitted thatthepresentcaseforpurposes ofjusticiabilityisindistinguishablefromthatofYiangouinthatin 1144 3 CX.R. 5 10 15 «Q jc -*" 35 Eracleous v. Republic Pikis J. bothcases theemergence of anexecutory decision of theDirector of Customs is dependent upon the importation of the goods. Counsel for theapplicant submitted thatthepresent case is distin­ guishable from thedecision in Yiangoumostly on accountof the wording of the two Orders andinparticular thespecific reference madein theorderfor theimportationof cars byrepatriatedCypriots tothetimeinterval within which thegoods mustbeimported, within areasonabletimeafter theirarrival in-Cyprus. Both orders specifically refer totheimportationof vehicles and must likewisebeinterpreted subject toandinaccordancewith the notion of importation elicitated in section 2 of the Customs and Excise Duties Law. Notonly section 2 of Law 82/67 as subse­ quently amendedmakes theexercise of thepower of theDirector of Customs dependent on the physical importation of the goods but thewhole framework of theexercise of his powers is tied to that reality. Theorderhereunderconsiderationvestspower intheDirector tograntrelief from thepaymentof duty upon "theimportation"of a car.TheGreek word used is "εισαγόμενα"which translatedin English means "imported". As a matterof law theelicitation of theeligibility of theimportertoaduty free carmustbe ascertained atthedateof importation. Theopinion of theGovernmentMedicalBoard is nodoubtan act preparatory to the exercise of the powers of the Director. However, if thisopinion is extricated from theactualimportation of a car it can at the highest be of an advisory or informatory character. An executory decision of the Director can only arise upon the importation of a car. Perhaps the Law ought to have been different andaperson claiming thebenefits of disability under theprovisions of therelevant order should have an executory decision in his handsbefore importing acar adapted tohis needs. And the authorities should, I believe, give consideration to this possibility. Be that as it may as the Law presently stands I am constrained,for thereasons earlier indicated,torule thatthedecision is nonjusticiable. Thatbeing thecase itis Ibelieve inadvisa1145 PikisJ. Eracleousv. Republic

(1988)bletoexpressanopiniononthemeritsofthecasefortheeligibilityoftheapplicantundertheorderherereviewedmustbedetermined atthedateof theimportation of thecar.One'sdisability mayworsenorforthatmatterimprovewiththepassageoftime.I consider it inopportune toexpress aconcluded opinion on the 5 meritsofthecase. Therecourseis,therefore,dismissedforlackofjusticiability. Recoursedismissed. 1146