What Article 79⁶ covers
Article 79⁶ of the Administrative Offences Code of Georgia penalises one narrowly drawn act: breaching the requirements provided for by the prior reasoned consent given for the import of certain hazardous chemical substances and pesticides. The wording repays attention. The sanction does not attach to importing as such — it attaches to breaching the requirements that the consent issued for that particular import laid down.
That distinction decides most cases. The starting point is that a consent exists and carries its own conditions: identification of the substance, quantity, intended purpose, recipient, and the regime for handling or storage. The offence arises from a mismatch between those conditions and the import as it actually happened. Until it is stated which specific requirement was breached, there is nothing concrete to answer, and any discussion of liability is premature.
The article itself does not list which substances and pesticides fall within this regime, does not say who issues the consent or by what procedure, and does not describe what the consent must contain. Those questions are governed by other legislation, not by this provision. Preparation of a defence therefore always begins with reading the document that set the requirements in the first place, rather than with the Code.
The sanction: 1,000 GEL
Article 79⁶ provides for a single fixed amount: a breach of the requirements results in a fine of 1,000 GEL. The article does not set a range within which the deciding body would choose a figure, and its text does not differentiate the sanction according to the category of person who committed the offence.
This has a direct practical consequence. Because the amount is written into the provision itself, there is no argument to be had about the size of the fine within this article. What remains contestable is whether the elements of the offence are present at all: whether a requirement provided for by the consent was in fact breached, and whether that breach is properly attributed to the person named in the protocol. The wording of the article now in force rests on the Law of 13 April 2016, No. 4953.
Who the article applies to
The provision reaches those who bring such substances into the country or organise the import process:
- importing companies and the declarants acting for them;
- agricultural and industrial businesses importing such substances for their own production;
- distributors and warehouse operators responsible for receiving and storing the consignment;
- those who applied for the consent and undertook the conditions described in that application.
Because the consent is tied to a specific import, the question of liability often turns on which link in the supply chain the mismatch is attributed to. Where the paperwork was prepared by one party, the consignment handled by another and the storage conditions controlled by a third, that attribution is a genuine issue rather than a formality.
How a case usually unfolds
A case normally begins as a comparison of documents. On one side sits the prior reasoned consent with its requirements; on the other, the consignment as it actually arrived, its accompanying documentation and the declared data. Where a discrepancy is found between the two, an administrative offence protocol is drawn up.
Article 79⁶ does not itself state what the protocol must contain, which body examines the case, or how the resulting decision is challenged. Those matters belong to the general part of the Code and to the powers of the relevant authority. Only two things come from this provision: the prohibited act and the amount set for it. Everything else has to be found elsewhere — which is itself a useful orientation when you are checking how the protocol has been worded.
What you can do, and where a lawyer changes the outcome
Because the fine is fixed, a defence works on the elements of the offence rather than on reducing the amount. In practice that means testing three questions: which requirement precisely is said to have been breached, and where that requirement is set out; whether the import as it actually occurred really departs from the conditions of the consent; and whether the departure is attributable to the person named in the protocol.
A lawyer works those questions through the documents: comparing the text of the consent against the declaration and the accompanying paperwork; checking whether the discrepancy recorded concerns a requirement provided for by the consent, or some other rule lying outside this article; clarifying how responsibility was allocated inside the company; and, where the facts support it, preparing a challenge to the decision. No one can promise a result in advance, but each of these questions has to be resolved on evidence rather than on the description in the protocol alone.
What to prepare
Collect the documents that describe the link between the consent and the import as it actually happened:
- the prior reasoned consent, together with every annex or amendment issued in relation to it;
- the administrative offence protocol and the decision, if one has already been issued;
- the customs declaration, the invoice, and the transport and accompanying documentation;
- the safety data sheet for the substance, the labelling and the consignment identification data;
- correspondence with the supplier and with the authority reflecting how the conditions were agreed;
- internal instructions and the documents allocating responsibility within the organisation.