(1988)1988September8 [STYLIANIDES.J.] INTHEMATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION CHRISTODOULOS A.MICHAILAS, Applicant, v, THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH
(1)THEMINISTEROFFINANCE,
(2)THEDIRECTOROFCUSTOMS DEPARTMENT, Respondents. (CaseNo. 188187). CustomsandExciseDuties—Motorvehicles,dutyfree importation ofbyCy· priots—Order188/82 oftheCouncilofMinisters—Thethreeprerequisites ofthe relief Executoryact—Confirmatory act—New inquiry—Substantive new material takenintoconsideration—Thenewactisexecutory—Theearlieractmerges 5 intothesecond, therebylosingitsexecutorycharacter. Executoryact—CustomsandExciseDuties—Motorvehicles,dutyfreeimportation of by Cypriots—Order 188/82 of the Council of MinistersDismissalofapplicationfor importation ofacar—Infact,noimportation evertookplace—Thedecisionisnotofanexecutorynature. 10 Thefactsofthiscasesufficiently appearintheJudgmentoftheCourt. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: Michaelv. TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R.2067; 1736 15 3_C.L.R. Michailas v. Republic Kyprianidesv. TheRepublic
(1982)3C.L.R. 611; Spyrouv. TheRepublic, (19%3) Ζ C.LR.3U; Yiangou v. TheRepublic
(1987)3C.L.R.27. Recourse. 5 ''* Recourseagainst therefusal of therespondents'toexemptap plicantfrom importduty for amotorcarasarepatriatedCypriot. A. Eftychiou, for theapplicant. D.Papadopoulou (Mrs.)',for therespondents. *•*' • * ' 10 15 20 25 ' '' Cur. adv. vult. STYLIANIDES J.read thefollowingjudgment. The applicant challenges thevalidity of therefusal of therespondentDirectorof Customstoexempt himfrom importduty for ambtor'car. Theapplicant is aCypriot borninAvgorou villageinthe Famagusta district.Ini960heemigrated toEngland.After longsettiementinthatcountry hereturnedtohis native land. On'March 4th, 1986,hesubmittedtotheDirectorof theDepartmentofCus tomsandExcise an"application,by duly completing a prescribed form,forrelieffromimportdutyof amotorcar. ^' Therelief was sought invirtue of theprovisions of Order188/ 82made by theCouncilof Ministersixnder section 11
(2)of the CustomsandExcise DutiesLaw, 1978, (Law No. 18/78). Under thesaid OrderaCypriot is entitled toexemption'if thefollowing requirementsaresatisfied: (a) Permanent settlement abroad for at least tencontinuous years: ,., (b)Returnandpermanentestablishment intheRepublic; arid 1737 StylianidesJ. Michailasv.Republic
(1988)(c)Importationwithinreasonabletimefrom thedateofarrival inthediscretionoftheDirector. Theprerequisite(b)consistsoftwoelements: 1. Return totheRepublic,and 2.PermanentsettlementintheRepublic. 5 BoththesettlementabroadandtheestablishmentintheRepublicimportthesamequality,thatistheelementofintentiontosettle andestablishpermanently.Evidenceofintention maybeimportant.Itisnotpossibleforapersontobepermanentlysettledinthe Republicandinanothercountryatthesametime.Theintentionof 10 permanentlysettlingmaybegatheredfrom theconductandaction consistent with such settlement. (SeePhilipposMichaelv.The Republic
(1986)3C.L.R.2067.) Thetimefor (c)must bereckonedfrom thedateofhisreturn andpermanentestablishmentintheRepublic. 15 TheRespondentrejected theapplicationforadutyfreecaron twogrounds: (a)Thatapplicant'spermanentsettlementabroadwasnotcontinuousashewasresidinginCyprusfrom7thNovember, 1979to 11thOctober, 1980;and 20 (b)Theimportation could nottakeplacewithin areasonable timefromthedateof hisreturn for settlement whichwas establishedtobethe22ndJuly,
- Thisdecisionwascommunicatedtotheapplicanton 10thSeptember,
- On 18th September, 1986, hesubmitted a petition forre— examinationandproducedsupplementarymaterialincludingmedical reports and documentsfromtheEnglish Social Insurance. 1738 25 3C.L.R. Michailasv.Republic StylianidesJ. Theapplicant alleged that hisstayfrom April 1979toOctober 1980inCypruswasdictatedbyhealthreasons,asheunderwent aheartoperationinEnglandandontheadvice*of hisdoctorshe cametoCyprustemporarilyforrest. · -' * 'v 5 ' The Administration re-examined thecase in the light of the newmaterialproduced.Itwasestablishedthattheapplicantbuilt up a house.in Cyprus whichwascompleted in 1984.Asfrom 22ndJuly, 1984,hereturnedwithhiswifetoCyprus'andresided intheirnewlybuilthouse.'He'travelled toEnglandfourtimesand 10 his wife twice between 22nd July, 1984 and 22nd February,
- He was paying social insurance in England as a selfemployedpersonuntilandinclusive'theyear1985-86.' On3rdJanuary, 1987,theRespondent2decidedtoreject the request for exemption from import duty and his decision was 15 communicated'totheapplicantbyletterdated9thJanuary,1987, •whichreads: '' ' ' ' "' r - "Withreference toyourletterdated 18thSeptember,1986, you are*informed thatwe"'havere-examinedyourcasebutit *' wasnotmadepossibletochangemyoriginaldecisionascom20 municatedtoyoubymyletterdated 10thSeptember,1986." Hencethisrecourse. 25 30 ' ' ' · CounselfortheRespondentscontendedthatthesubjudice'decisioncannotbe*made*subjectofarecourseasitissimplyaconfirmatory act.-Inthecourseof thehearing,however,rshe,having regardtothematerialadducedbytheapplicantwhichwasbefore theAuthorityafter 18thSeptember, 1986,concededthat anew inquiry wascarriedoutandthattherewasanewact.(SeeKypriahidesv.'Republic
(1982)3-C.L'.R: 611andSpyroiiv:Republic
(1983)3CL.R. 354).' ' -1 · ' * « - · - + _· Theletterdated9thJanuary, 1987,containsaconfirmation of theearlieronebutitwasmadeafter anew'ihquiry to1thematter. Whennewsubstantivefactualelementsare'takenintocohsidera1739 StylianidesJ. Michailas v.Republic
(1988)tioninarrivingatasubjudicedecisiontheseconddecisionisnot a confirmatory act but a newexecutory act. The executory act ceasestobeoperativeandmergesintothesecondact. Itwasargued thattheapplicant'spermanentestablishementin Cyprus commenced in February, 1986andnotJuly, 1984.On 5 thebasisof thematerial inthefileitwasreasonablyopentothe Respondent toconclude that the applicant returned and permanentlyestablishedintheRepublicin 1984andnot1986. Objection wastakenbycounselfortheRespondentthatnocar wasimportedandtherefore theactcomplainedofisnotofanexe- 10 cutorynature.Indeednocarhaseverbeenimportedbytheapplicant. InAnna Yiangouv. TheRepublic
(1987)3C.L.R. 27,Full Bench, theappellant whohadreturnedtoCyprusinApril1981, applied totheRespondent toinform herwhetherincase sheim- 15 ports onafuture dateamotorcarshewouldqualify forexemptionofimportdutyunderOrder 188/82.Astheanswerwasinthe negative,shechallengeditbymeansofarecoursewhichwasdismissed. Upon appeal theFull Benchraised expropriomotuthe issue whether the subjudice decision isof anexecutory nature 20 andheldthat—thecrucialissueinOrder 188/82being"theimportation takesplacewithin areasonable timefrom arrival"thesub judice decision wasin thenatureof aconfirmatory oradvisory act. It wasalsosaid that Order 188/82 should beread andinterpreted subject tothedefinition oftheword"import"insection2 25 of theLaw,i.e.,bringingofgoodsintotheRepublicfromabroad by seaorair. Thereisnoindication thatanycarwasimportedandnoparticularsofavehicletemporarilyortobeshortlyimportedweregiven.Inthecourseof thehearinglearnedcounselfor theapplicant 30 applied for adjournment tocommunicate withhisclientwithregard to the actual importation of a car. The adjournment was granted.Noaffidavit astofacts,asdirected,wasfiledandcounselstatedinCourtthathehasnothingtosay.Soitmustbetaken 1740 3 C.L.R. Michailas v.Republic StylianidesJ. that nocarhasever been importedby theapplicant.As no car wasimportedtheprerequisite (c)above,that is,"importationofa carwithinreasonabletime"wasnotsatisfied. ,'. * , 5 <^ ' · ' ' " · ' - .- Furthermore, inview of thenon-importationof thecar, the sub judice decision is notamenabte.to,the,jurisdiction of this Court. ' ' Foralltheaforesaid reasonsthisrecoursefails anditishereby dismissed,but,inthecircumstances,therewill benoorderas to costs. Recoursedismissed. Noorderasto costs. - .·>! •Μ » 1» , .ι ' · , * - ' \ 1741 . , r \<. •