Litigación en procesos contencioso tributarios respecto de actos administrativos de valoración aduanera.

Abstract

In summary, this paper demonstrates that the customs administration violates citizens' constitutional right to a justified reasoned decision by public authorities. SENAE (National Customs Service of Ecuador) issues customs valuation decisions, both during concurrent and subsequent inspections, in which it rejects the value declared by the importer and seller for certain goods acquired abroad, recalculates the taxable base, and increases the amount of the tax liability. They justify this action by claiming that the customs valuation database—which includes other imports into Ecuador—contains similar goods for which a higher value was paid than for the goods in question, even though both had similar quality, commercial reputation, and functionality; were acquired in the same country; and were imported at similar times and in similar quantities. However, under the argument that the valuation base is confidential under supranational regulations, customs fail to provide documentary evidence that the imports with which it makes its comparison actually occurred. And, even if they did occur, it does not verify that the data used by the administration for the reassessment is accurate. Clearly, the constitutional right to a reasoned decision prevails over the confidentiality of the valuation base, and both can certainly coexist. Therefore, the state has no license to issue administrative acts lacking factual basis. That said, this paper addresses how to litigate these types of cases; that is, what arguments should be presented to mount an adequate defense when dealing with similar situations. Furthermore, this paper also demonstrates why a reasoned decision is essential in these types of cases, beyond being a fundamental right. Through judicial precedents, it can be verified that the administration incorrectly applies secondary valuation methods. This incorrect application could never be detected simply by reading the administrative acts being challenged in court; rather, it is necessary to break the secrecy claimed by the administration and access its valuation database, which usually conclusively corroborates the misapplication of the aforementioned methods.