Post by firoj1616 on Feb 15, 2024 11:43:45 GMT
Many importing companies are being harmed by the so-called special inspection procedure by the Federal Revenue, because they can spend up to six months without goods and without working capital. And, after that time, they do not seek compensation for damages in court, to enforce an elementary constitutional principle, which is the principle of efficiency of public administration, due to lack of knowledge or fear of other reprisals, legal or abusive. This procedure, usually implemented when goods are cleared, is provided for in current customs legislation by Normative Instruction 228/2002, for when there is evidence of incompatibility between the volumes transacted in foreign trade and the economic and financial capacity of the importing company. IN 228/2002 sets a deadline of up to 90 days for completing this inspection, but opens up the possibility of extension for an equal period in situations duly justified by the head of the Federal Revenue Secretariat unit.
But the one who pays for the lack of efficiency is the importer, who has his goods unavailable for as long as the procedure takes. Here, then, is the absurdity of an administrative rule that goes against the principle of efficiency of public bodies, established by article 37 of the Brazilian Constitution, and reaffirmed in Federal Laws. What are the port expenses, such as storage and daily fines for retaining containers charged by ship owners? Who New Zealand Email List is responsible for the loss of not being able to sell the goods at the right time when there is demand here in Brazil, thus losing the importer the commercial opportunity that would guarantee not only his profit, but his own ability to pay the foreign supplier? In practice, what has been verified is that tax auditors ignore the exercise of commercial representation, for more than a century, by small financial companies that work with the capital of their represented, or even with financing granted with deadlines of up to 180 days to close the exchange.
This six-month period is an absolutely normal practice according to Central Bank rules and more than enough time for someone to buy, sell and pay their supplier without needing to prove economic and financial capacity compatible with the volumes transacted. Thus, the special inspection procedure ends up being a crime against small businesses and a balm for large economic groups and their cartelized markets that are increasingly protected by the federal government.Advogados.At this point, it is worth highlighting that the legal provision was published prior to the National Tax Code and must be interpreted in light of this and the Federal Constitution. Analyzing the issue, some tax experts argued that, in accordance with article 32 of Law 4,357/64, debtor companies could only distribute bonuses/profit sharing if the debts were covered by attachment, deposit or bank guarantee, in accordance with article 9 of the Law.
But the one who pays for the lack of efficiency is the importer, who has his goods unavailable for as long as the procedure takes. Here, then, is the absurdity of an administrative rule that goes against the principle of efficiency of public bodies, established by article 37 of the Brazilian Constitution, and reaffirmed in Federal Laws. What are the port expenses, such as storage and daily fines for retaining containers charged by ship owners? Who New Zealand Email List is responsible for the loss of not being able to sell the goods at the right time when there is demand here in Brazil, thus losing the importer the commercial opportunity that would guarantee not only his profit, but his own ability to pay the foreign supplier? In practice, what has been verified is that tax auditors ignore the exercise of commercial representation, for more than a century, by small financial companies that work with the capital of their represented, or even with financing granted with deadlines of up to 180 days to close the exchange.
This six-month period is an absolutely normal practice according to Central Bank rules and more than enough time for someone to buy, sell and pay their supplier without needing to prove economic and financial capacity compatible with the volumes transacted. Thus, the special inspection procedure ends up being a crime against small businesses and a balm for large economic groups and their cartelized markets that are increasingly protected by the federal government.Advogados.At this point, it is worth highlighting that the legal provision was published prior to the National Tax Code and must be interpreted in light of this and the Federal Constitution. Analyzing the issue, some tax experts argued that, in accordance with article 32 of Law 4,357/64, debtor companies could only distribute bonuses/profit sharing if the debts were covered by attachment, deposit or bank guarantee, in accordance with article 9 of the Law.