Abstract:

Article 242 of the Customs Act, entitled Controversy, provides for the way of objection against customs taxes and penalties and administrative decisions. The administrative objection contained in the Customs Law is considered as a mandatory administrative application method in the academic studies carried out in this regard, if necessary in the high court proceedings and administrative practice. When the secondary legislation concerning the aforementioned provision and provision is examined, it is clear that this practice is in conflict with both the basic principles of the administrative judicial law and with the fundamental rights and freedoms. This method of administrative application directly affects the taxpayer’s right to access the court. In addition, due to the interest of delay caused by the extending administrative and judicial process, the property rights of the applicants are also indirectly affected. The result of this study is the conclusion that the ruling exists is erroneously assessed by the administrative and judicial bodies. Because the regulation in the Customs Law clearly describes an old-age application pathway, this path is considered mandatory. The following sentence is erroneous as the source of the provisions in the secondary legislation concerning the judgment of the Administrative Procedure Act (YUK) article 10. The 10th edition is an arrangement that does not apply to any of the circumstances in which the administration does not assign a deal. However, the administrative objection contained in the Customs Act can only be made against an administrative procedure under the Customs Administration. In the light of these findings, it is ultimately illustrated that the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals may be violated. The administrative objection is forbidden by the right of access to the court to prevent the persons from bringing the legal dispute to the court.

Keywords: