Gill Nadel, Adv.
The court has ruled again - and this time in a higher instance (the district court of Haifa) - that the court filing fee to be paid for an action requesting a declarative writ on the cancellation of customs debt is not calculated by the size of those charges.
As we know, a fee of 2.5% of the sum of the action is charged for filing an action for a monetary remedy, while an action for a declarative remedy requires of fee of only a few hundred shekel.
The question brought before the court involved an importer who had charges issued against it and who requested a declarative judgment from the court ordering the cancellation of the charges, while in the intermediate stage depositing a bank guarantee. Should a fee be paid in this case according to the value of the suit or according to the declarative remedy?
The court ruled that the fee should be calculated not by the monetary value of the charges but as a declarative remedy. This means significant monetary savings in actions regarding the cancellation of high charges.
We have noted in the past that from a practical perspective, the question is what's better for the importer- to deposit a bank guarantee or to pay the tax and sue for its refund? Besides considerations of fees, the following factors should also be weighed: A) A bank guarantee is paid all at once, while the tax payment can be spread out over a payment plan. B) A bank guarantee doesn't stop the running interest and inflation, while a payment plan does. C) Enacting a payment plan may, practically, make it easier to cancel lateness penalties.
319/07Me'adnai Yam (Seafood) Atelnetic Ltd v. State of Israel Tax Authority, given 22.10.07.
עדכוני מכס ורגולציה
