The fine is 2,000 GEL — can it be reduced?

Article 66⁴ names a single fixed sum and provides no minimum-to-maximum bracket, so there is no scope under this provision for arguing the figure down. A dispute here is normally about whether the conduct was correctly classified under this article at all, and about the scope of the confiscation that accompanies the fine.

I held a valid permit. Why was I fined?

Holding a permit is the precondition for this article, not a defence to it. Article 66⁴ penalises breach of the conditions on which the permit was granted, not the absence of a permit. The first thing to establish is which condition is said to have been broken and where in the documentation that condition appears.

Is the confiscation avoided if I pay the fine?

The text places confiscation of the object of the offence alongside the fine, not as an alternative to it, so the two apply together. Paying is not in itself a basis for the item to be returned. What can be contested is how far the confiscation extends — in particular whether it should reach an entire consignment.

Does this apply to a foreign trader shipping through Georgia?

The article describes conduct rather than a category of person, and it makes no distinction between local and foreign holders of a permit. Note also that transit is not among the four operations listed in Article 66⁴, which names export, import, re-export and introduction from the sea — so which of those four is said to have been carried out is worth checking against the wording.

How long do I have to appeal?

Article 66⁴ sets no appeal deadline and names no reviewing body; those questions are governed by other provisions of the Code and depend on which authority decided the case. The period and the addressee therefore have to be checked against the document issued in your case rather than assumed from a general rule.

Breach of the conditions of a CITES permit (Art. 66⁴)

What Article 66⁴ actually covers

Article 66⁴ of the Georgian Code of Administrative Offences addresses one specific situation: a permit exists and was properly issued, but the conditions on which it was granted have been broken. The permit in question is the one required for the export, import, re-export and introduction from the sea of species listed in the appendices to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora — CITES — together with their parts and derivatives.

The wording treats all four operations alike. Export, import, re-export and introduction from the sea are named in the same breath and carry the same consequence; the article draws no distinction between them for sanctioning purposes. What the provision reaches as an object matters just as much. It is not confined to a live or non-live specimen, because parts and derivatives are named expressly. In practice that means a case can concern an item that no longer looks like an animal or a plant at all, provided it derives from a species listed in the Convention's appendices.

What the law provides — the sanction

Article 66⁴ sets out a single sanction with two elements: a fine of 2,000 GEL, and confiscation of the object of the offence. The fine is a fixed sum. The article does not set a minimum-to-maximum bracket, and it does not scale the amount by species, by quantity or by the value of the consignment.

The confiscation sits alongside the fine in the text rather than as an alternative to it. In many cases that is the heavier half. The money is known in advance, whereas what actually leaves your possession depends on what is treated as the object of the offence. Where a consignment is mixed, the reach of that term tends to be the part of the case with the most at stake.

Why "conditions" is the operative word

The centre of this article is the conditions of the permit. The Code does not itself list which condition, once broken, is enough to trigger liability. Those conditions are written into the permit and into the acts that govern how it is issued. A case under Article 66⁴ therefore turns on documents: what the permit allowed, what it did not allow, and how closely the operation actually carried out matched what was written down.

For the same reason it matters that Article 66⁴ is the provision for someone who held a permit: holding one is the precondition of the article, not a shield against it. The operation itself repays the same attention. The article names four of them — export, import, re-export and introduction from the sea — and the text goes no wider than that list, so one of the first things to establish is which of the four was actually carried out and precisely which condition attached to it is said to have been broken.

How a case runs in practice

Matters under this article usually begin at a border crossing or during an inspection, at the point where the consignment in front of the officer is compared with what the permit records. The mismatch may concern quantity, the identification of the species, the operation actually performed, or the persons and route named in the document. Article 66⁴ does not describe that comparison and does not state what the decision must contain, so what happens next follows the general rules of administrative proceedings rather than anything set out in this provision.

Nor does the article fix an appeal deadline or name the body that hears an appeal — those questions are set by other provisions of the Code and turn on the circumstances of the individual case. Both the deadline and the addressee therefore have to be established from the document issued in your case rather than assumed from a general rule. What Article 66⁴ itself yields is the sanction and nothing beyond it: a fine of 2,000 GEL together with confiscation of the object of the offence, the two applying side by side.

What you can do, and where a lawyer changes the outcome

Because the fine is fixed, there is little room to argue about the amount. The real work lies in the classification and in the reach of the confiscation. The questions worth putting are these:

was a permit in force at the moment the operation was carried out;
which condition is said to have been broken, and where exactly is it recorded;
is the item genuinely a species listed in the CITES appendices, or a part or derivative of one — an identification question before it is a legal one;
does the operation actually carried out fall within the four the article names — export, import, re-export, introduction from the sea;
how far does the confiscation reach — the whole consignment, or only part of it.

What to gather before the first meeting

A case under this article is a case about paperwork, so collect everything that relates to the operation and bring it together rather than piecemeal:

the permit in full, with every annex and every condition attached to it;
customs and transport documents — the declaration, waybills, correspondence with the carrier;
the report or other document drawn up during the inspection and handed to you;
proof of provenance, and any expert identification of the species that already exists;
correspondence showing how the operation was planned and what was agreed with the counterparty.

Representation does not change the figure the article names. What it can change is whether the correct provision was applied, whether the breach alleged is one the permit genuinely imposed, and how much of the consignment the confiscation properly touches.