In this case we had to deal essentially with, first of all, in putting together and presenting the relevant fact basis to the point, as well as with the fully integrated EU Customs regulation. This was done in parallel with the Finnish Customs arguing aggressively based on Finnish national rules on customs and administration. In addition, the interaction between the Finnish and the Irish Customs authorities and the involvement of the EU Commission, played an important role in the case, and made the case overall multifaceted.

In appeals proceedings, after receiving arguments from multiple angels, the Administrative Court held that our client had not behaved with obvious negligence, as referred to in the article 212a of the Community Customs Code, basing its decision on the principle of protection of trust and the principle of proportionality and annulled the decision made by the Finnish Customs on subsequent recovery.

The case was specifically challenging because of the very thick customs regulative framework with deep EU dimension, added with rather aggressive and tenacious way the Finnish Customs fought their case. Also, the need to deal with features relating to convincing the prudent nature of the acts taken, i.e. the behavior by a customs debtor as your client where, on the other hand, the adverse party i.e. the Customs is very unclear in its claims and evidence, as was the case here, is very challenging from the procedural perspective.

Finally, one specific feature of the case was the need to address the conclusions made by the Customs Authorities of various other EU jurisdictions as well by the European Commission in the matter, and to convince the Court of the legal effect of these conclusions, which we also succeeded with.