← Κύπρος

clr/1988/1988_3_1264.pdf

(1988)1988June24 [SAVVIDES,J.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION GEORGMOSNICOLIS, Applicant, v, 1.THEDIRECTOROFTHEDEPARTMENTOFCUSTOMSANDEXCISE, 2.THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGHTHEOFFICEOFTHEATTORNEY-GENERAL, Respondents. (CaseNo. 744/87). CustomsandExcise Duties—Motor vehicles, importation ofby Cypriots— Exemptionfrom importduty—Order188/82 oftheCouncilofMinisters— "Permanentsettlementabroad'—Meaningof—Reviewofauthoritiesonthe subject. Therecourseinthiscaseremained unopposedtotheend.Thesubjudicerefusal toallowthedutyfreeimportationofaMotorVehiclebytheapplicantwasannulledonthegroundthat,inthelightofthefactsofthiscase, itwasnotreasonablyopentotherespondentCommissioner. Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: Mavronichisv.TheRepublic
(1985)3 C.L.R. 230; Constantinidesv. TheRepublic
(1986)3CUR.822; 1264 3C.L.R. Nicolisv.Republic .Neocleousv.TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R. 1435; loannou v. TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R.
  1. Recourse. 5 Recourse against refusal of therespondent toallow applicant toimportadutyfreemotorvehicleasarepatriatedCypriot. A. Poetis, for the applicant. Noappearance fortherespondent y 10 ,s 2Q · i' ' Cur. adv. vult. SAVVIDES J.readthefollowing judgment. The applicantby thepresent recourse challengestherefusal of therespondent Director of theDepartment of Customs 8c Excise not toaccede to applicant'sapplicationtoimportamotor-vehiclefreeofdutyunder the provisions of Sub-heading 19of item 0.1 of the Fourth ScheduletotheCustoms&ExciseDutiesLaw, 1978,whichwas communicated to the applicant by letter dated the 4th August,
  2. ' : L The only legal ground on which the recourse is.based and which was argued bycounsel for applicant is that the subjudice decision violates the provisions of Law 18/78 and the Fourth Scheduleofthe saidlawunder Sub-heading 19,item0.
  3. Thecase was fixed for the 2ndDecember, 1987,andcopyof the application together with anoticeof thedateof hearing was servedon therespondents on 9th September,,1987.Neitherthe. respondents noranycounsel on their behalf appeared onthe2nd 2 5 December*.1987, anddirections were given in their absense by • theex-President of thisCourtbefore whomthecase wasfixed for anopposition tobefilled by the 15thJanuary andfor writtenaddressesthereafter in accordancewiththedirectionsgiven andthe case was adjourned tothe 6ttiApril, 1988.Directions were also 1265 SavvidesJ. Nicolisv.Republic
(1988)giventotheRegistraroftheCourtthatcopyoftherecordbesent to therespondents. Suchcopy wassenttothembytheRegistry on7th December, 1987,butagain therespondents failed toappearandopposetheapplication. When the case came up before me,on the 6th April, 1988, 5 havingbeensatisfied thatnoticeofthehearinghaddulybeensent totheoffice of theAttorney-General Itreatedthecaseasunopposed and I gave directions tocounsel for applicant to file his writtenaddresswithinonemonthandappearbeforetheCourton the 14thJune,1988,fororalclarifications. 10 In viewof thefact thatrespondentsfailed toappearandalso failed toopposetheapplicationIshallproceedtodelivermyjudgmentonthebasisof thefacts before measpresented bycounsel fortheapplicantwhicharesupportedbyanaffidavit swombythe applicantonthe 14thJune,
  1. 15 TheapplicantisacitizenoftheRepublicandwasbomon14th October, 1950.He attended school up to the third class of the Gymnasiumandthendecidedtotakeemploymentoriginallyasa seamanandfor suchpurposeheleftforDenmark.Since1973according tohisaffidavit hetook permanent residence abroad. In 20 1981hegotmarriedabroadandreturnedtoCyprusinNovember, 1984,forpermanentsettlementinCyprus. Applicant submitted anapplication onthe 18thJuly, 1985to respondentIfor thedutyfree importationofhisMitsubishiGallant 1.6 GLSmotor-carwhich hadbeenpreviously temporarily 25 imported into Cyprus by customspermission and registered in CyprusunderReg.SE347.Respondent 1 informedtheapplicant that it was not found possible toaccede to hisrequest on the groundthat"hisstayabroaddidnotconstitutepermanentsettlementasprovided bythelaw"andalsothatthetemporarystayin ~Q Cyprus of the vehicle in question wasextended till 31st July, 1987 by which date he had either to export itfromCyprus or placeitinageneralbondedwarehouseorpayallcustomsduties andchargespayablethereonatavaluetobeassessedattherates 1266 3 C.L.R. Nicolisv. Republic SavvidesJ. inforce as at21st June,
  2. , ι 5 10 -- \ ; Infact thereply of respondent
(1)isonacyclostyledformon 'whichtheonlyadditionswerethenameoftheapplicant,thenum­ berof.hiscar,thereason of therefusal andwith thedeletionof certainpartswhichwerenotapplicable.Thisfact however might havebeenmaterialhadagroundof law for lack of duereasoning beenraised whichis notthe caseand.therefore,Ishall limitmy­ self tothesolequestionputbefore me for answer. Before touchingthesubstanceof thecaseIshall makeabrief reference totherelevant Orders relating to the importationof duty-freecars by,repatriatedCypriotsafter apermanentsetdement abroadfor aperiodof atleasttenyears. , TheOrderof theCouncilofMinisterswhichwasissuedunder .theprovisions of s.l 1
(2)of the-Customs&Excise Laws 1978to 15 1981andpublishedintheofficial Gazetteof theRepublicof 10th July, 1981, underNotification 151provides underitem0.1, Sub­ heading 19,thatmotor-vehicles of tariff headings 87.02.11and .87.02.19importedby Cypriots who after permanent settlement abroadfor acontinuousperiod of atleast tenyears returned;to 20 takeuppermanentresidence in Cyprus,areexempted fromimpoitdutyprovidedthat(a)suchmotor-vehicleswereintheirpos­ session for aperiod of npt:less than oneyear and (b)only one motor-vehicle for each family could be allowed dutyrfree. The above Orderwas repealedand substitutedby anew Order,ofthe 2<r .Councilof Ministerspublished intheofficial Gazetteof the Re­ public, SupplementNo. 3of the 11thJune, 1982, underNotifi­ cation 188.Itsscope was toobliterate thefirstcondition of the .previous Orderandextend its application tonew cars and, also, bytheadditionofthe-words"prpvided theimportationtakesplace . within areasonableperiodoftimefrom theirarrival atthediscre.tipnoftheDirector". , , , i M , .t 0 Thequestionofexemptionfromimportdutyinrespectofcars imported;by Cypriots whoafter permanentsettlementabroadre­ turned.totakeuppermanentresidencein,Cyprusandtheextentof 1267 SavvidesJ. Nicolisv.Republic
(1988)suchexemptionhasnowbeenregularizedbynewprovisionsintroducedbytheCustoms&Excise(Amendment)(No.3)Lawof 1987(Law309/87)whichamendeds.11of thepreviouslawby virtueofwhichtheaboveOrderswereissued.Inviewofthefact however,thatthepresentcasehastobedecidedonthelegalsitu- 5 ationwhichexistedonthedatewhenthesubjudicedecisionwas takenIfind itunnecessary tomakeanydetailedreference tothe newprovisionsintroducedbyLaw309/87inthisrespect Thesolequestionwhichposesforconsideration,asmentioned earlier,iswhethertheapplicantatthematerialtimewhenhere- IQ turnedtotakepermanentresidenceinCyprussatisfied thecondition ofpermanentsettlementabroadforacontinuousperiodofat leasttenyearsasprovidedbyNotification 188. ItiswellestablishedbyaseriesofdecisionsofthisCourtthat when apersonclaimsrelieffrom payment ofdutytheburden is 15 uponhimtosatisfy theappropriateauthorityofhisentitlementto suchrelief. From the material before methe following facts areestablished: TheapplicantleftCyprusin 1972andwenttoDenmarkwhere 20 hetook employment as a seaman and heremained abroad ever since.Accordingtohis affidavit hesettledpermanendyabroad andin 1981 hegotmarriedthereandreturnedtoCyprusaboutthe endof 1984forpermanentsettlement.ApplicantbroughttoCyprusin 1985aMitsubishiGallant 1.6GLSmotor-carwhichhe 25 wasallowedtoimporttemporarilybyvirtueofapermitgrantedto himon27thJune,1985.On 18thJuly,1985,hesubmittedhisapplicationforrelieffrom importdutyundertheprovisionsofSubheading 19ofitem0.1oftheFourthScheduletotheCustoms& Excise Duties Law on the ground of a permanent settlement ™ abroadforacontinuousperiodofatleasttenyears.After adelay oftwoyearstheDirectoroftheDepartmentofCustoms&Excise decidedtoreject applicant'sapplicationandinformedhimaccordingly byletterdated 4th July, 1987,towhich reference hasal1268 3C.L.R. readybeenmade. Nicolisv.Republic ' SavvidesJ. . ' Thequestion as to what amountstoapermanent settlement abroadhasbeenconsideredinanumberofcasesofthisCourt.In someofthemthestayofanapplicantinaforeigncountryforpur5 posesofstudieswasnotconsideredtobeapermanentsettlement abroad{Mavronichisv.TheRepublic
(1985)3C.L.R.230, Constatinides v.TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R.822.Inothersitwas found thatinthesurroundingcircumstances andthefactsofthe particularcases,theconclusionoftheDirectoroftheDepartment JO of Customs&Excisewasreasonablyopentohim(Neocleousv. TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R.1435). InIoannou v.TheRepublic
(1986)3 C.L.R 1263,although theapplicanthadprovedthathehadbeenresidinginSaudiArabia for morethantenyearsneverthelesshisrecoursewasdismissed 15 on the ground that itwasreasonably open totherespcnurTtftc. find thattheapplicant:.ad\oi beenpermanentlystayinginSaudiArabiaasinthecircumstancesofthecaseandonthematerialbeforetheCourtnon-Moslemshadnorighttosettleatthatcountry. 20 25 30 Inthepresentcasefrom thefactsbeforemeitemanatesthatthe applicant since 1973hadbeen residing abroad andhad noconnectionwithCyprus.ThereisnoindicationthatinDenmarkorin anyotherEuropeancountrypermanentsettlementforaforeigner irrespective of denomination asin thecaseofIoannou(supra) cannotbeacquired.Infactfromwhatemanatesfrom thefactsset outinapplicant'saffidavit hehadpermanentlysetdedandresided abroadsince 1973,afact whichstandsuncontradicted. Inthecircumstancesofthepresentcaseandinthelightofall materialbeforemeIfindthattheconditionssetoutforthegrant of theconcession for aduty-free cararesatisfied and,therefore, thedecisiontakenbytherespondentwasnotreasonablyopento him.FurthermoreIhavecometotheconclusion thattherespondent Directorof theDepartment of Customs&Excisefailed to carryoutadueinquiryintothecaseoftheapplicantbeforereachinghisdecisionofrefusing hisapplication. 1269 Savvides J. Nicolis v. Republic
(1988)Intheresultthepresentrecourse succeedsandthesubjudice decision ishereby annulled.Bearinginmindthefact thattherecoursehasnotbeenopposedImakenoorderforcosts. Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderastocosts. 5 1270

🔗 Στην επίσημη πηγή

AI explanation based on the official legal text. Indicative, not a substitute for legal advice.