Facts
The appellant, [A.] , filed an appeal on behalf of the bankruptcy estate [B.] against the judgment of the Federal Administrative Court, Division I, of 21 March 2013. This judgment confirmed the ruling of the Federal Customs Administration of 6 June 2012, which obliged [B.] to pay CHF xxx in motor vehicle tax, CHF xxx in value-added tax, and CHF xxx in default interest. The subsequent liability was justified on the grounds that in 92 of the imports of passenger vehicles, for which he was the contractor in the customs sense, a lower customs value had been declared.
The [E. GmbH] , of which [B.] was the managing director, had imported vehicles from abroad in 155 cases between 1 September 2005 and 22 July 2009. In 147 of these cases, only part of the effectively taxable consideration was declared for customs clearance. Invoices were submitted that incompletely listed the compensation and ancillary costs.
The appellant argued that [B.] did not belong to the circle of (customs) liable persons within the meaning of Art. 70 CustA (Art. 9 and 13 aZG) and was not jointly and severally liable for the duties.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the appeal and came to the conclusion that [B.] was liable for customs payments and thus already liable under Art. 12 para. 2 ACLA. The appellant's arguments that [B.] could not be held responsible are therefore irrelevant.
The court found that [E. GmbH] had ordered the vehicles in question abroad and had commissioned [D. AG] with the import.…