What Article 91² covers
Article 91² of the Georgian Code of Administrative Offences brings two quite different products together in a single sentence. The first is tetraethyl lead, a lead-bearing chemical compound known as a fuel additive. The second is adulterated liquefied gas intended for household and communal use — the gas supplied for ordinary domestic and utility consumption.
The two products are not prohibited to the same extent, and that detail is easy to miss. For tetraethyl lead, the article names two forms of conduct on the territory of Georgia: import and sale. For adulterated household and communal liquefied gas, it names import only. In other words, exactly which product and which act are recorded in the report is what determines whether a case falls within this article at all — and that is the first thing worth reading closely in the paperwork served on you.
The article does not define a separate category of person as the addressee of the fine; it describes conduct. The question therefore arises against whoever brought the goods onto the territory of Georgia, or, in the case of tetraethyl lead, whoever sold them. In practice that reaches importers, wholesale and retail suppliers, and organisations that store or distribute such products.
What the law provides
Article 91² is not divided into parts. It sets a single sanction for all the conduct it lists: a fine of between 400 and 4,000 GEL, with confiscation of the relevant products. Both elements come from the text of the article itself, and they are stated together rather than as alternatives.
This is where the article differs from other fuel-related provisions of the same Code, which name one fixed sum. Article 91² gives a range, so the amount is set somewhere between 400 and 4,000 GEL. The article does not, however, list the circumstances that decide where within that range a particular case lands. That is simply not written into the provision, so it should not be treated as though a rule existed.
Confiscation is often heavier than the fine
In practice the main financial consequence of a case under this article is frequently not the fine but the confiscation of the goods. The article ties confiscation to the relevant products, that is, to the goods the offence concerns. Two questions therefore become critical almost every time:
- precisely which goods were identified as tetraethyl lead or as adulterated liquefied gas;
- what volume, and which consignment, was attributed to the offence.
If the identification of the goods or the boundaries of the consignment were recorded imprecisely, that feeds directly into what is liable to be confiscated. This is why the sampling records, the test findings and the description of the goods usually matter more in these cases than an argument about the size of the fine.
How a case runs, and what the article leaves open
A case of this kind normally begins with an examination of the goods — sampling, testing, and a record of the result — followed by an administrative offence report. From the report you need to establish which product was identified, which act the person is charged with, and which goods the confiscation attaches to. That entry becomes the subject of everything that follows.
It is just as useful to know where Article 91² is silent. It does not define what makes gas adulterated, or set out the criteria by which that is established, so the question is resolved on the factual material and under other provisions. Nor does the article set an appeal deadline, name the body that hears an appeal, or say what the decision must contain.
The deadline and the addressee must therefore be checked in the document that was served on you. A general assumption is a poor substitute here: missing an appeal deadline routinely does more damage to a case than the disputed facts ever do.
The line of defence, and what a lawyer does
Because the sanction is expressed as a range and comes with confiscation, a defence normally runs on two tracks: whether the classification holds at all, and whether the goods have been correctly defined. The points most often in dispute are:
- whether it is established that the case really concerns tetraethyl lead or adulterated liquefied gas;
- which act is alleged — import or sale — and whether it fits the wording of the article;
- whether the sampling and testing procedure was followed;
- what volume of goods is attributed to the offence, and therefore exposed to confiscation;
- whether the rules on drawing up the report and serving it were observed.
A lawyer cannot promise you that the fine or the confiscation will be reversed, and should not. What is actually done is to study the file, compare the test findings against the description of the goods, build a reasoned position, and file it with the competent body within the applicable period. It is often at this stage that it emerges whether the goods described in the test findings actually match the consignment recorded in the report.
What to bring
A consultation is far more productive if you arrive with the core documents:
- the administrative offence report and every annex to it;
- the sampling record and the laboratory or test findings;
- documents describing, seizing or removing the goods;
- import and trade paperwork — the declaration, waybills, contracts;
- information on the size of the consignment and where it was stored.