Facts
The appellant [X.] , owner and operator of the restaurant [A.] in [B.] , had procured a total of 2'844 kg of pork from [Y.] between 1996 and 2001, who had imported it into Switzerland from Austria without customs declaration. The Schaffhausen Customs District Directorate issued a ruling against [X.] , declaring him jointly and severally liable with [Y.] for duties totaling Fr. 74'039.10. [X.] appealed against this ruling to the Federal Customs Commission, which dismissed his appeal. [X.] then filed an administrative appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
The lower court had established that [X.] was to be considered as the principal within the meaning of Art. 13 CustA in conjunction with Art. 9 CustA, as he had declared his general willingness to accept the pork deliveries and thus had instigated the importation. [X.] was therefore held jointly and severally liable with [Y.] for the entire duty amount not levied on his meat purchases.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the administrative appeal, as the lower court had rightly established the appellant's liability for payment. The court stated that the provision of Art. 12 ACLA regarding subsequent or retroactive payment liability was a (normal) customs regulation and not a penal provision. The appellant's liability for payment was therefore based on Art. 12 para. 1 and 2 ACLA.
The court emphasized that the appellant was to be considered as the principal within the meaning of Art. 13 CustA in conjunction with Art. 9 CustA, as he had declared his general willingness to accept the pork deliveries and thus had instigated the importation. The appellant was therefore jointly and severally liable with [Y.] for the entire duty amount not levied on his meat purchases.
The…