Such a conclusion was made by the Supreme Court on October 1, 2018 in the case 689/1980/16 on the abolition of the customs decision, by which a person was found guilty of committing a violation of customs rules and imposed of a fine of 500 untaxed minimum income, which was UAH 8500.

Under the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff at the beginning of 2016 imported into the territory of Ukraine a car registered in Estonia on the basis of a customs declaration for the purpose of transit. The "transit" regime was chosen by the plaintiff to avoid the need for customs clearance and payment of payments.

However, the result was the issuance of the relevant resolution, on the grounds that the plaintiff in the terms defined in Art. 95 CC of Ukraine (for vehicles - 10 days, in the case of moving in the area of ​​one customs - 5 days), the car is not removed and continues to use it without the permission of the customs.

After failure in the court of appeals, the plaintiff lodged a complaint with the Supreme Court referring to the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 1-rp/2015, which established that the use of personal means of transport imported for the purpose of transit through the customs territory of Ukraine is not an administrative offense envisaged in Part 2 Art. 469 of the CK of Ukraine.

The Supreme Court, taking into account the decision of the Constitutional Court, has determined that Part 2 of Art. 469 of the Customs Code of Ukraine clearly defines actions, inaction and conditions that qualify as offenses concerning goods which customs clearance is not completed or which are temporarily stored under customs control or placed in the customs warehouse regime. Such a customs regime as temporary admission is not specified in this list. Therefore, the decision to cancel the contested decision complies with the legislation of Ukraine.