---

Decision announcement session of Case No. 113/PUU-XIII/2015 concerning Customs Act was held on Thursday (29/9), in Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ifa

 

 

 

The Constitutional Court declared the petition of Case No. 113/PUU-XIII/2015 concerning Customs Act inadmissible, on Thursday (29/9). The petition was filed by Entikong Customs and Excise Office section head Iwan Jaya.

“Declares Applicant’s petition inadmissible,” said Deputy Chief Anwar Usman reading the Decision.

In legal consideration, the Court assessed that customs monitoring post is a post for monitoring customs instead of for implementing customs obligation, unless if the post has legally equated with customs office..

Regarding the elucidation of Article 5 (3) Act of Customs (UU Kepabeanan), the Court argued that it is indeed strengthened the intention of Article 5 (3) juncto (1) Act of Customs; customs obligation cannot be fulfilled in customs monitoring post. “The Court doesn’t find any obscurity in the elucidation if the elucidation referred is read after reading entire Article 5,” Anwar added.

Moreover, the Applicant argued he has treated discriminative; he was considered committing crime because he exercised service of customs obligation in border check post in Entikong, West Kalimantan. According to the Applicant, the practice of customs obligation service has been done by other officials under legal reason and never been questioned by law enforcers. The Court argued that such matter is a matter of norm implementation, instead of norm constitutionality. Therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction on it.

Provisions in the 1945 Constitution, the Court argued, are incorrect if used for assessing the constitutionality of the elucidation of Article 5 (3) and (4) Act of Customs. The elucidation of Article 5 regulates the existence of customs monitoring post or other places for fulfilling customs obligation. According to the Court, such matter clearly doesn’t have correlation with Applicant’s constitutional right to work because his status as civil servant in Custom and Excise Directorate General has proved that the Applicant wasn’t hampered in getting job.

“Based on entire legal consideration above, the Court argues Applicant’s argument regarding contradiction of Article 5 (3) and (4) Act No. 17/2006 (Customs Act, ed.) to Article 23 (1), 23A, and 28D (2) the 1945 Constitution has no legal ground,” said Anwar.

As known, the Applicant was named suspect because he allowed import activities from Malaysia to Indonesia by using import notification (PIB), invoice and packing list in Entikong monitoring post, as if the post is a customs area. He argued that Article 5 (4) Act of Customs caused multiple interpretations; some interpret that import activity cannot be done in monitoring post because the post is not determined as customs area by Finance Minister, and others parties Finance Ministry’s Customs and Excise Directorate General, Trade Ministry’s Foreign Trading Directorate General, and Home Affairs Ministry interpret that import activity can be done in monitoring post using import notification (PIB) even though the post, in this case is Entikong monitoring post, is yet determined as customs area by Finance Minister. He argued that the validity of customs obligation fulfillment wasn’t depend on customs area.

In the petition, the Applicant requested the Court to declare Article 5 (3) Act of Customs contrary to Article 23 (1), Article 23A, and Article 28D (2) the 1945 Constitution if it isn’t interpreted as for the purposes of servicing and monitoring goods traffic and orderliness of unloading, as well as securing State’s financial. (Lulu Anjarsari/lul/Prasetyo Adi N)

---