Low Significance of Illegal Movement of Goods Across the Customs Border of the EAEU Under Applicable Administrative Offense Laws of the Russian Federation

Relevance of this article is arisen from the gap in the statutory definition and indicia of the low significance of the administrative delict, pursuant thereto judges are vested with the wide discretionary powers on allotting sociallydangerous acts with the indicia of the low significance and defining the harm degree inflicted by the administrative offense to the protected social relations. In addition to that an analysis of the law enforcement practice proved that this statutory gap results to giving contradictory and sometimes opposite judgments.
Purpose of the research is determining the indicia and definition of the low significance of illegal movement of goods across the customs border of the Eurasian Economic Union as well as defining the harm degree inflicted by the administrative offense to the protected social relations for recognizing a delict as the low significant one.
Objectives study of the administrative offense laws of the Russian Federation in the context of regulating the definition of the low significance of illegal movement of goods across the customs border of the EAEU and determining of its indicia; analysis of the law enforcement practice and scientific research which define indicia of the low significant illegal movement of goods; elaboration of proposals for improvement of the administrative offense laws of the RF in question.
Methodology. In this research the dialectical method of inquiry is applied which one is a complex of the general and private scientific methods.
Results. The author elaborates proposals for determining the definition and indicia of the low significance of administrative illegal movement of goods across the customs border of the EAEU.
Conclusions. The conducted research allows to state about the necessity of determining indicia of the low significance as well as the harm degree inflicted by the administrative offense to the protected social relations through the prism of set of all offence elements of illegal movement of goods across the customs border of the EAEU in the form of the administrative delict.

1. Lomakina L. A. Ponyatie maloznachitel'nosti administrativnogo pravonarusheniya v KoAP RF [The concept of insignificance of an administrative offense in the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation]. Zhurnal rossijskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2012, no. 9(189), pp. 55–59.

2. Karpov A. A. Teoreticheskie aspekty klassifikacii ob"ektov administrativnyh pravonarushenij v oblasti tamozhennogo dela [Theoretical aspects of classification of objects of administrative offenses in the field of customs affairs]. Tamozhennoe delo = Customs business, 2008, no. 2, pp. 32–38.

3. Dolgih I. P. O pravovyh osnovah ob"yavleniya licu, v otnoshenii kotorogo osushchestvlyaetsya proizvodstvo po delu ob administrativnom pravonarushenii, ustnogo zamechaniya [On the legal basis of the announcement of an oral remark to a person in respect of whom proceedings on an administrative offense are being conducted]. Novoe slovo v nauke i praktike: gipotezy i aprobaciya rezul'tatov issledovanij = New Word in Science and practice: hypotheses and approbation of research results, 2019, no. 10, pp. 166–170.

4. Dorohov N. A., Bezruk A. N. Pravovoe yavlenie "maloznachitel'nye deyaniya" [The legal phenomenon of "insignificant acts"]. Vestnik Astrahanskogo gosudarstvennogo tekhnicheskogo universiteta = Bulletin of the Astrakhan State Technical University, 2012, no. 1(53), pp. 95–96.

5. Sherstoboev O. N. K voprosu o maloznachitel'nosti administrativnyh pravonarushenij: nekotorye problemy teorii i praktiki [On the question of the insignificance of administrative offenses: some problems of theory and practice]. Rossijskaya yusticiya = Russian Justice, 2008, no. 10, pp. 57–60.

6. Shishkina O. E., Sajko N. A. Maloznachitel'nost' v administrativno-deliktnom prave [Insignificance in administrative-tort law]. Zakonnost' = Legality, 2015, no. 7, pp. 50–54.

7. Klyushnikov I. A. Sovershenstvovanie zakonodatel'stva i pravoprimenitel'noj praktiki ob osvobozhdenii ot administrativnoj otvetstvennosti po maloznachitel'nosti pravonarushenij. Avtoref. diss. kand. yurid. nauk [Improvement of legislation and law enforcement practice on exemption from administrative liability for minor offenses. Cand. legal sci. abstract diss.]. Moscow, 2013.

8. Gumenyuk T. A. Maloznachitel'nost' administrativnogo pravonarusheniya kak osnovanie osvobozhdeniya ot administrativnoj otvetstvennosti [Insignificance of an administrative offense as a basis for exemption from administrative responsibility]. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossijskoj Federacii = Bulletin of Economic Justice of the Russian Federation, 2006, no. 11, pp. 16–29.

9. Panov A. B. O maloznachitel'nosti administrativnyh pravonarushenij [On the insignificance of administrative offenses]. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshej shkoly ekonomiki = Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2012, no. 2, pp. 80–98.

10. Derbina O. V., Kupeeva L. Ch. Problemnye voprosy opredeleniya priznakov maloznachitel'nosti administrativnogo pravonarusheniya [Problematic issues of determining the signs of insignificance of an administrative offense]. Vestnik Vologodskogo instituta prava i ekonomiki Federal'noj sluzhby ispolneniya nakazanij = Bulletin of the Vologda Institute of Law and Economics of the Federal Penitentiary Service, 2017, no. 1(37), pp. 31–33.

11. Podval'nyj I. O. K voprosam maloznachitel'nosti administrativnyh pravonarushenij, voznikshih v praktike arbitrazhnyh sudov Severo-Zapadnogo okruga [To the issues of insignificance of administrative offenses that have arisen in the practice of arbitration courts of the North-Western District]. Arbitrazhnye spory = Arbitration disputes, 2009, no. 1, pp. 107–130.

12. Darovskih S. M. K voprosu o maloznachitel'nosti administrativnogo pravonarusheniya [On the question of the insignificance of an administrative offense]. Vestnik Yuzhno-Ural'skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Bulletin of the South Ural State University, 2012, no. 7, pp. 96–98.

13. Rozhnov A. P. Ponyatie maloznachitel'nosti nuzhdaetsya v unifikacii [The concept of insignificance needs unification. Yuridicheskaya nauka = Legal Science, 2017, no. 6, pp. 81–87.

14. Dubrovskaya I. Predupredit' ili nakazat'? [Warn or punish?]. EZH-Yurist = EJ-Lawyer, 2013, no. 5, pp. 1–3.

15. Deryuga N. N., Deryuga A. N. Penologicheskie aspekty uslovij nastupleniya administrativnoj otvetstvennosti [Technological aspects of the conditions for the onset of administrative responsibility]. Zhurnal rossijskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2020, no. 4, pp. 105–112.

16. Channov S. E. Osnovaniya dlya osvobozhdeniya ot administrativnoj otvetstvennosti [Grounds for exemption from administrative responsibility]. Grazhdanin i pravo = Citizen and Law, 2011, no. 4, pp. 3–14.

17. Keramova S. N. Maloznachitel'nost' administrativnogo pravonarusheniya kak osnovanie osvobozhdeniya ot administrativnoj otvetstvennosti [Insignificance of an administrative offense as a basis for exemption from administrative responsibility]. Gosudarstvennaya sluzhba i kadry = Public service and personnel, 2019, no. 2, pp. 172–174.

18. Stepanov V. V. Pravovaya priroda norm o maloznachitel'nosti pravonarusheniya [The legal nature of the norms on the insignificance of the offense]. Leningradskij yuridicheskij zhurnal = Leningrad Law Journal, 2007, no. 1, pp. 139–140.

19. Zhdanov N. M., Zhdanova A. N. Osvobozhdenie ot administrativnoj otvetstvennosti [Exemption from administrative responsibility]. Administrativnoe pravo i process = Administrative law and process, 2012, no. 4, pp. 61–65.

20. Mukaseeva N. N., Fedoseev R. V. Problemy pravovogo regulirovaniya kategorii "maloznachitel'nost' administrativnogo pravonarusheniya kak osnovanie osvobozhdeniya ot administrativnoj otvetstvennosti" [Problems of legal regulation of the category "Insignificance of an administrative offense as a basis for exemption from administrative responsibility"]. Yuridicheskaya nauka = Legal Science, 2019, no. 7, pp. 78–80.