Cellular operator purchased cell phones and imported them to Israel while some of the devices were purchased, for promotional and spare parts, at a reduced or free cost. The Customs Authority required to calculate the value of the transaction in accordance with the value of the products and not in accordance with the reduced price at which they were actually purchased. The court ruled that customs fees should be paid in accordance with the actual amount paid and not in accordance with the normal goods price. Customs payment is in accordance with the percentage of customs stipulated in regulations double the value of the goods, except for goods that are subject to customs exemption law. In addition, some goods also have a sales tax, which is similarly calculated. In principle, only when the value of the goods cannot be estimated according to the value of the transaction - the price actually paid or payable under the transaction, for example when the consideration cannot be calculated or there are conditions for payment, the customs authority may assess the goods according to similar products. Here, the cellular operator purchased the cell phones as part of a deal where he received some of the discounted promotional devices while pledging to give them to public opinion leaders and renters for free. In addition, they received 5% cost-free devices, in exchange for releasing the supplier from warranty duties on the products he provided and subject to the additional devices to not be sold to customers, is an economic transaction for all purposes, where the value of the supplier's warranty removal is embodied in the price of the devices supplied free of charge. Therefore, the price of the instruments for customs purposes should be examined according to the price actually paid and not according to the value of the goods.
Published in Afik News 290 28.08.2019
Related articles
An employer is not permitted to use the tips received by his employee to pay social benefits without the employee’s consent
Labor Law and Immigration
Dispute Resolution
Waiters employed at the luxury restaurant “Segev” received their salary from a shared tips pool. In 2019, the restaurant unilaterally decided, without the employees’ consent, to deduct 20% from the tips to fund social benefits and related contributions. The employees objected to the change and even took organizational steps to oppose it. The National Labor […]
It is forbidden to use a company name which may mislead the public that it is another company
Business, Corporate and Joint Ventures
Dispute Resolution
A man founded a company with a name that includes his full name. Thereafter, members of his family founded a company with a name that also includes the shared surname and deals in the same areas of activity. However, after decades of activity and an agreement between the parties that the first company would be […]
When parties agree on a transaction and only the drafting of the agreement remains negotiation in bad faith is a breach of agreement
Real Estate
Dispute Resolution
A parties signed a lease agreement alongside a document entitled ‘Option to Purchase a Property’ which stipulated that the apartment will be sold during the lease period or at the end thereof and the parties will jointly act to finalize a sale contract. In practice, the lessor did not agree to make any changes to […]
A shareholder who is not personally a party to an arbitration agreement will not be added to the arbitration proceeding to which the company is a party
Business, Corporate and Joint Ventures
Dispute Resolution
A controlling shareholder in a company was added as a party to an arbitration proceeding, even though he is not personally a party to the arbitration agreement, but rather the company. The Supreme Court held that there was no reason to add the controlling shareholder to the arbitration proceeding by virtue of piercing the corporate […]