Topical Issues of Legal Regulation of Penalties for Violation of the Terms of Customs Payments

The issue of the legal nature of penalties in customs is controversial. Changes that have taken place since 1993 in the customs regulation of the procedure for calculating penalties show that the legislator has moved away from the pronounced punitive in nature interpretation of this category. At the same time, in the literature for more than 10 years, scientists have equated penalties in customs legal relations with a variety of sanctions. Law enforcement practice, in turn, does not consider penalties as a measure of responsibility, emphasizing their exclusively right restorative (remedial) function. The paper highlights modern regulatory provisions confirming the conclusion that the legislator acknowledges and consolidates the punitive function of penalties for late payment of customs payments. At the same time, the emphasis is made on the approach that is not always consistent in regulating grounds and procedure for penalties payment. Such ambiguity failes to contribute to a uniform interpretation and application of legal rules governing calculation of penalties. The paper attempts to substantiate the need for a legislative definition of the place of penalties for late payment of customs payments in the system of measures of state coercion.

1. Bakaeva O. Yu. Pravovoe regulirovanie finansovoj deyatel’nosti tamozhennyh organov Rossijskoj Federacii : avtoref. dis. … d-ra yurid. nauk. — Saratov, 2005. — 50 s.

2. Bakaeva O. Yu. Finansovo-pravovaya otvetstvennost’ za narusheniya tamozhennyh pravil // Vestnik Saratovskogo gosudarstvennogo social’no-ekonomicheskogo universiteta. — 2004. — № 9. — S. 131–136.

3. Vitruk N. V. Obshchaya teoriya yuridicheskoj otvetstvennosti. — 2-e izd., ispr. i dop. — M. : Norma, 2009. — 431 s.

4. Kozhevnikov S. N. Gosudarstvennoe prinuzhdenie: sushchnostnye aspekty // Social’no-politicheskie nauki. — 2017. — № 3. — S. 71–74.

5. Kornilov A. R. Pravovye procedury instituta yuridicheskoj otvetstvennosti : avtoref. dis. … kand. yurid. nauk. — N. Novgorod, 2000. — 25 s.

6. Lipinskij D. A., Shishkin A. G. Ponyatie mery yuridicheskoj otvetstvennosti // Zhurnal rossijskogo prava. — 2013. — № 1 (198). — S. 40–49.

7. Lyutova O. I. Penya v nalogovom prave: aktual’nye voprosy pravovoj prirody // Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo universiteta imeni N. I. Lobachevskogo. — 2017. — № 2. — S. 139–143.

8. Pustomolotov I. I. Mery otvetstvennosti i sposoby obespecheniya obyazatel’stv v grazhdanskom prave // Izvestiya Tul’skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ekonomicheskie i yuridicheskie nauki. — 2013. — № 5-2. — S. 110–116.

9. Shamionov A. R. Pravovaya priroda peni v nalogovom i tamozhennom prave // Izvestiya Saratovskogo universiteta. Novaya seriya. Seriya «Ekonomika. Upravlenie. Pravo». — 2017. — Vyp. 1. — S. 118–122.