Facts
The Swiss Federal Office for Customs (OZD) declined to entertain the objection of [A.] by decision of 13 February 2020, because the advance on costs had not been paid. [A.] then appealed to the Federal Administrative Court, Division I.
By interim orders of 16 July 2020 and 18 August 2020, the Federal Administrative Court ordered [A.] to pay an advance on costs of CHF 500.--, with the final deadline of 8 September 2020, under threat of non-entry. The appellant did not pay the advance within the time limit. By decision A-2928/2020 of 24 September 2020, the Federal Administrative Court therefore declined to entertain the appeal.
By appeal in public law matters of 19 October 2020 (received at the Swiss Embassy in Bratislava), [A.] requested, in substance, that the decision of the lower court be set aside and that the customs duties, VAT and fine, which he stated he had already paid, be refunded. He argued that, having returned to his home country because of Covid-19, he was unable to work and received no social insurance benefits, and was therefore unable to pay the advance. He also referred to an advance of CHF 600.-- paid on 15 July 2019 to the Schaffhausen Customs District Directorate, the refund of which he also requested. He requested that no costs be levied in the proceedings before the Federal Supreme Court.
The division president, acting as instructing judge, dispensed with instructive measures, in particular with an exchange of written submissions.
The subject matter of the proceedings before the Federal Supreme Court is solely whether the lower court was right not to entertain the appeal because the advance on costs was not paid in time.
Considerations
Under Art. 42 paras. 1 and 2 FSCA, a written submission must contain, in concise form, the reasons why and to what extent the contested act violates the law. The reasoning must relate to the subject matter of the proceedings before the lower court; this may be narrowed before the Federal Supreme Court, but may not be extended or changed (Art. 99 para. 2 FSCA).
The appellant argues, in substance, that he is without means, so the lower court should have waived the obligation to pay the advance. The Federal Supreme Court counters that he could have filed an application for legal aid or for deferral of payment, either in the proceedings before the lower court or before the payment deadline expired. He did not file such an application, and he does not explain why the lower court should have entertained the matter even without such an application.
The appellant's reasoning largely misses the subject matter of the proceedings, since he mainly addresses the merits of the imposed import duties. However, the lower court was only required to examine whether the advance on costs was paid within the time limit set.…