What Article 182⁶ covers
Article 182⁶ of the Administrative Offences Code of Georgia deals with three items: sound (acoustic) weapons, gas aerosol devices and electroshock devices. Part 1 attaches liability to manufacturing (producing), repairing, importing, exporting, re-exporting or transiting any of them without the relevant licence or permit provided for by Georgian legislation, and equally to trading in any of these weapons without the relevant licence. Read together, the listed acts describe stages of commercial circulation — production, servicing, movement across the border, and sale. Carrying such an item, or acquiring one for personal use, does not appear in that list and is not the subject of this article. The people this article typically reaches are therefore manufacturers, repairers, importers and exporters, freight and transit operators, and retailers, whether they are trading from premises or online. The article draws no distinction between large and small volumes, and it does not specify that the activity must be systematic; its text speaks only of the listed acts and of the absence of the relevant licence or permit.
The penalties the article provides
An offence under Part 1 results in a fine of GEL 5,000, with or without confiscation of the weapon. Part 2 addresses repetition: where a person on whom an administrative penalty has already been imposed for any administrative offence under this article commits any offence defined by the same article again, the fine is GEL 6,000, again with or without confiscation of the weapon. Both figures are fixed — the article contains no "from — to" band, so there is no scope to argue the amount down within it. What is variable is the confiscation. The text expressly allows the penalty to be imposed either with confiscation or without it, which means the fate of the goods is a distinct question, and one the law itself leaves open to argument rather than settling in advance. The article stands in its current form by virtue of Law of Georgia No. 1271 of 17 December 2025.
Repetition is measured across the whole article
One detail is easy to miss and changes the figure directly. Part 2 does not require that the same act be committed twice. Its wording refers to any offence provided for by this article. So if a penalty was previously imposed for, say, repairing without a licence, and the person is later found to have traded without a licence, that still falls under Part 2 and means GEL 6,000 rather than GEL 5,000. The first thing to establish in any such case is therefore whether an earlier penalty exists at all, and whether it was genuinely imposed under this same article rather than under a neighbouring provision that happens to concern similar goods.
What the argument is really about
Article 182⁶ does not itself list which operation requires which licence. It refers to the relevant licence or permit provided for by Georgian legislation, leaving the content of that requirement to the licensing rules. That is why the first substantive question in almost every case is whether the particular operation required a licence at all. In practice attention falls on the following:
- whether the item really is a sound (acoustic) weapon, a gas aerosol device or an electroshock device;
- which act was recorded — manufacture, repair, import, export, re-export, transit or trade;
- who the operating party is, and on whom the licensing obligation fell;
- whether a licence or permit existed, and whether it covered this specific operation;
- how the conduct is described in the protocol, and whether that description matches the wording of the article.
That last point deserves particular attention. The article lists seven distinct acts, and each describes a factually different situation: manufacture is one thing, transit another, retail sale a third. Where the protocol says only that something was done "without a licence" and never names which act, it is unclear what factual circumstance you are being asked to confirm or rebut. A description that vague is itself something to examine, and raising it on appeal is entirely legitimate.
What you can do
Begin with the paperwork. Article 182⁶ itself sets no appeal route, body or time limit — it provides the two fixed fines of GEL 5,000 and GEL 6,000 and the confiscation qualifier, and nothing beyond that; those procedural questions are governed by other provisions of the Code and have to be established on your own file. Check your own copy on the first day rather than at the end of the period. Give separate attention to the goods themselves: if weapons have been seized there should be a description and a count, and because confiscation is not automatic under this article the disposal of those goods can be addressed on its own terms. Do not write your explanation in haste — whatever is signed on the spot stays in the file. Where a business is involved, gather licensing documentation, contracts, customs declarations, shipping paperwork and warehouse records straight away, while they are still easy to locate rather than scattered across correspondence and systems.
What to bring to a consultation
A first meeting is far more productive when you arrive with:
- a complete copy of the protocol and the decision, every page;
- a list and description of any items seized;
- the licence or permit, or the refusal of one, if you hold either;
- contracts, invoices, customs declarations and transport documents;
- details of any earlier penalty imposed under this same article.