DISPUTE RESOLUTION ON CLASSIFICATION OF IMPORTED GOODS PARAQUAT DICHLORIDE FOR LEGAL CERTAINTY

Authors

  • Enna Budiman Universitas 17 Agustus 1945, Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Jakarta, Jakarta, Indonesia
  • Timbo Mangaranap Sirait Universitas 17 Agustus 1945, Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Jakarta, Jakarta, Indonesia
  • Khalimi Universitas 17 Agustus 1945, Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Jakarta, Jakarta, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56371/jirpl.v6i3.422

Keywords:

Customs, Legal Certainty, Tax Court, Administrative Dispute, Customs Tariff

Abstract

The classification dispute over the import of Paraquat Dichloride between an importing company and the Directorate General of Customs and Excise has become an important precedent in Indonesian State Administrative Law (TUN), particularly in the customs sector. The dispute arose due to different interpretations of tariff classification: the importer classified Paraquat 42% Technical as a raw chemical (HS 2933.39.30.00) with a 0% import duty rate, while Customs classified it as a ready-to-use herbicide (HS 3808.93.19.00) with a 5% rate. This dispute had significant implications for the fiscal obligations of both the company and the state, and highlighted regulatory uncertainty in the pesticide industry. This study aims to analyze the dispute resolution mechanism in that context, covering the appeal process at the Tax Court, Judicial Review at the Supreme Court, and the broader implications for legal certainty and administrative practices. The method used is normative juridical with a statutory approach and a case study of court decisions. The analysis found and concluded: First, the administrative dispute resolution mechanism in customs classification follows a tiered process consisting of administrative objection, judicial appeal to the Tax Court, and judicial review (PK) to the Supreme Court. Second, in terms of legal reasoning, both the importer and DJBC presented arguments based on valid legal frameworks, but differed in interpreting the tariff classification, each supported by legally debatable claims. Third, the Tax Court and the Supreme Court assessed the case objectively using evidence such as laboratory analysis results, the Indonesian Customs Tariff Book (BTKI), and fundamental principles of administrative law. Fourth, the legal implications of the Supreme Court's ruling are highly significant for public administration, reinforcing the legal authority of DJBC and potentially serving as jurisprudence in the future.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Directorate General of Customs and Excise. (2023). Guidelines and report on goods classification testing (PER-1/BC/2023). Jakarta.

Jayanti, H. D. (2025, February 12). 3 hal yang bisa memunculkan sengketa kepabeanan. Hukumonline. Retrieved from https://www.hukumonline.com/

Putriyanti, A. (2015). Upaya administratif dan sengketa tata usaha negara. Jakarta: Faculty of Law, University of Indonesia.

Republic of Indonesia. (1995). Undang-Undang Nomor 10 Tahun 1995 tentang Kepabeanan [Law Number 10 of 1995 on Customs]. State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1995 Number 75.

Republic of Indonesia. (2002). Undang-Undang Nomor 14 Tahun 2002 tentang Pengadilan Pajak [Law Number 14 of 2002 on Tax Court]. State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Year 2002 Number 27.

Republic of Indonesia. (2006). Undang-Undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2006 tentang Perubahan atas UU No. 10 Tahun 1995 tentang Kepabeanan [Law Number 17 of 2006 amending Law Number 10 of 1995 on Customs]. State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Year 2006 Number 93.

Rizki, M. J. (2020, January 30). Mengenal strategi penyelesaian sengketa kepabeanan dan cukai. Hukumonline. Retrieved from https://www.hukumonline.com/

Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia. (2024). Putusan Nomor 613/B/PK/Pjk/2024 dalam perkara DJBC vs PT Syngenta Indonesia.

Downloads

Published

2025-06-20

How to Cite

Enna Budiman, Timbo Mangaranap Sirait, & Khalimi. (2025). DISPUTE RESOLUTION ON CLASSIFICATION OF IMPORTED GOODS PARAQUAT DICHLORIDE FOR LEGAL CERTAINTY. JILPR Journal Indonesia Law and Policy Review, 6(3), 478–486. https://doi.org/10.56371/jirpl.v6i3.422