Customs Penalties for Businesses — What Errors in a Declaration Cost in Poland and the UK

Enlarge

Poland: fiscal criminal liability for customs errors

Chapter 7 of the Fiscal Penal Code ("Fiscal offences and fiscal petty offences against customs obligations and the rules of foreign trade in goods and services", Articles 85–96 KKS) describes the sanctions for breaches of customs obligations.

Article 86 KKS — customs smuggling

Anyone who, failing to comply with a customs obligation, brings goods into the country from abroad or takes them out of the country without presenting them to the customs authority or making a customs declaration, thereby exposing customs duty to reduction, is liable to a fine of up to 720 daily rates or imprisonment, or both. Where the amount of customs duty put at risk is of low value (Article 86 § 3; in 2026 up to PLN 961,200, i.e. 200 times the minimum wage), the offender is liable only to a fine of up to 720 daily rates — this is still a fiscal offence, although without the threat of imprisonment. Only where the amount does not exceed the statutory threshold (Article 86 § 4; in 2026 PLN 24,030, i.e. 5 times the minimum wage) is the act a fiscal petty offence.

Article 87 KKS — customs fraud

Anyone who, by misleading the authority entitled to carry out customs control, exposes customs duty to reduction is liable to a fine of up to 720 daily rates or imprisonment, or both. The same thresholds as in Article 86 determine the milder penalty: for low value — only a fine of up to 720 daily rates (§ 3), and up to the statutory threshold — a fiscal petty offence (§ 4). This provision applies where false data were knowingly given in the customs declaration (e.g. an understated customs value, an incorrect CN code or false origin of the goods).

Article 85 KKS — obtaining a document by deception

This concerns obtaining a permit or other similar document relating to the conditions of foreign trade in goods or services by deceitfully misleading the authority, as well as using such a document — the penalty is a fine of up to 720 daily rates or imprisonment of up to 2 years, or both.

Fiscal petty offence versus fiscal offence

The Fiscal Penal Code distinguishes between fiscal offences and fiscal petty offences — the classification depends primarily on the amount of duty put at risk or reduced in relation to the statutory threshold, i.e. 5 times the minimum wage at the time the act was committed (Article 53 § 3 and § 6 KKS). With the minimum wage of PLN 4,806 in force in 2026, this threshold is PLN 24,030. A fiscal petty offence carries only a fine set as a fixed amount (from 1/10 to 20 times the minimum wage, i.e. in 2026 from PLN 480.60 to PLN 96,120 — Article 48 § 1 KKS) and may be concluded with a penalty notice (up to 5 times the minimum wage). Voluntary submission to liability (Article 17 KKS) is available for fiscal petty offences and for fiscal offences punishable only by a fine — not for acts punishable by imprisonment. With repeated errors, however, you must remember the continuous offence: two or more acts undertaken at short intervals (for reductions in revenue — up to 6 months) in pursuance of the same intention or exploiting the same opportunity are treated as one prohibited act (Article 6 § 2 KKS), which may shift the classification from a petty offence to a fiscal offence.

United Kingdom: Customs Civil Penalties (CCP)

The UK customs penalty system was introduced by sections 24–41 of the Finance Act 2003. HMRC distinguishes two kinds of penalty: the Civil Evasion Penalty (for deliberate evasion of duty — it presupposes dishonesty) and an ordinary Civil Penalty (for a breach of customs rules without an element of dishonesty).

Ordinary errors in a declaration

Under Customs Notice 301 ("Civil penalties for contraventions of customs law"), any error in an import or export declaration is treated as a contravention of customs law, and HMRC has discretion to start proceedings for a penalty. HMRC expressly stresses in its guidance (CCPG10120) that these penalties do not presuppose dishonesty or an intention to evade duty — they are administrative in nature.

Amount of the penalty

According to Customs Notice 301, the minimum penalty is £250 and this is usually the first penalty a business will receive — although it depends on the seriousness of the breach. For further similar breaches HMRC imposes penalties in progressively increasing amounts, up to the statutory maximum: £2,500 per contravention for more serious irregularities and £1,000 for the others.

Civil Evasion Penalty — where HMRC suspects dishonesty

If HMRC concludes that the error was not accidental but resulted from deliberate action aimed at avoiding customs charges, the case may be classified as a Civil Evasion Penalty instead of an ordinary Civil Penalty. In that case the penalty equals the amount of duty or tax that the business evaded or attempted to evade (s. 25 Finance Act 2003), and the proceedings require HMRC to demonstrate dishonesty on the part of the person concerned — a higher burden of proof than for an ordinary breach of the rules. In the most serious cases (organised smuggling, systematic falsification of documents) the matter may be referred for criminal proceedings, not only administrative ones.

Support instead of an automatic penalty

HMRC states in its guidance that for businesses that want to comply with the law but made a mistake through lack of knowledge, support, education and advice are offered first, rather than an automatic penalty — which distinguishes the British approach from the rigid fiscal-criminal classification in Poland.

How to reduce the risk of sanctions

• Verify the CN code, customs value and origin of the goods before filing the declaration — errors in these three areas are the most common cause of proceedings.
• If you notice an error after clearance, check whether the declaration can be corrected (in the EU — Articles 173–174 UCC, in the UK — the CDS mechanism) before a check finds the error.
• Keep documentation supporting the data in the declaration (contracts, invoices, customs value calculations) — in the event of a check it is this that decides whether the case is classed as a mistake or deliberate action.
• For large-scale operations, consider Authorised Economic Operator (AEO) status — it gives, among other things, fewer physical and documentary checks (Article 38(6) UCC). Remember that breaches resulting in a CCP penalty may affect keeping AEO status in the UK (HMRC, CCPG11130).

Voluntary disclosure of an error — why it pays

In both Poland and the United Kingdom, voluntarily reporting an error to the authorities before a check finds it is treated as a mitigating circumstance. In the Polish legal system, the institution of active repentance (Article 16 KKS) allows the offender to avoid fiscal criminal liability if they notify the prosecuting authority of the prohibited act, disclosing its essential circumstances — in particular the persons acting together with them — and pay the reduced public-law liability in full within the set time limit. The notification is ineffective where the authority already had clearly documented knowledge of the act or had begun an action or inspection aimed at uncovering it (Article 16 § 5 KKS). In the United Kingdom the rule is even more favourable: under Customs Notice 301 a business will not receive a CCP penalty if it itself discovers and voluntarily discloses the contravention — in writing and at a time when it had no reason to believe that HMRC was taking action in relation to customs duties.

Liability of the customs representative versus liability of the importer

It is worth remembering that when a customs representative (customs agent) is used, responsibility for the content of the declaration is distributed differently depending on the type of representation. With direct representation, the agent acts in the name and on behalf of the importer/exporter, and responsibility for the data in the declaration remains mainly with the declarant (the client). With indirect representation, the agent acts in their own name, on behalf of the client, and is a debtor alongside the person on whose behalf the declaration was lodged (Article 77(3) UCC), which means joint and several liability for the customs debt (Article 84 UCC) — which has direct significance in determining who is responsible for an error resulting in a penalty.

Liability of individuals within a company

For fiscal offences and petty offences under the Fiscal Penal Code, criminal liability is borne by an individual, not by the company itself as an entity — usually the person actually dealing with the company's customs matters (e.g. a board member, logistics director, or a person responsible for customs declarations under an internal division of duties). Companies trading on a large scale should have clearly defined and documented areas of responsibility for customs declarations — this facilitates both internal quality control and a defence in fiscal criminal proceedings, where it must be shown who was actually responsible for a given area.

Sources

• Polish Fiscal Penal Code — Act of 10 September 1999, consolidated text Journal of Laws 2025, item 633 (ISAP, in Polish)
• Regulation of the Council of Ministers of 11 September 2025 on the minimum wage in 2026 — PLN 4,806 (ISAP, in Polish)
• Civil penalties for contraventions of customs law — Customs Notice 301, GOV.UK
• CCPG10120 — Introduction: overview of Customs Civil Penalties — HMRC internal manual, GOV.UK
• Finance Act 2003, s. 25 (Civil Evasion Penalty) — legislation.gov.uk

This article is for information only and does not constitute legal advice. In a disputed matter, consult a tax adviser or a lawyer.

If you want to minimise the risk of errors in a customs declaration, contact us.

Frequently asked questions