---
title: "Breach of the conditions of a CITES permit (Art. 66⁴)"
url: "https://legal.ge/en/service/administrative-and-public-law-en/breach-of-the-conditions-of-a-cites-permit-art-664-en"
field: "Administrative & Public Law"
description: "Article 66⁴ — breach of the conditions of a CITES permit: a fine of 2,000 GEL and confiscation of the object of the offence. Legal.ge."
updated: "2026-10-14"
publisher: "legal.ge"
---

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

> Source: legal.ge, https://legal.ge/en/service/administrative-and-public-law-en/breach-of-the-conditions-of-a-cites-permit-art-664-en

## 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.

The full text is available on legal.ge after signing in: https://legal.ge/en/service/administrative-and-public-law-en/breach-of-the-conditions-of-a-cites-permit-art-664-en

### 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.