Here is how French Customs (or at least the Mulhouse directorate) is trying to solve the issue
Seems like a very strict interpretation unless you go naked…I prefer the other interpretations from Dugny, Lyon and Metz (including send us FPL by email 24h in advance)
What about aircraft?
Peter wrote:
Well, luggage = goods in all international travel (as does everything you carry including your watch) but doesn’t that completely nullify this whole “regulation”?
I don’t think that the following complies with the EU regulation on border crossing – for red/green/… corridors they had some definitions…
Peter wrote:
Well, luggage = goods in all international travel
I would say that’s a unusual interpretation. Personal belongings of the kind you typically bring on travel is normally not considered “goods”.
The empirical exception disproves any theoretical assertion 
Go to CH and buy the 50k watch and bring it through an EU (or UK) Customs border. They will be absolutely very interested in making you pay import VAT on it.
Try it CH → Sweden, overtly.
What one can “get away with” is a totally separate argument and totally off topic.
I think you will find that the Mulhouse statement might suffer from a bit of “lack of precision to cover all eventualities”. It is part of French culture to sign something “on my honour”. Great stock is held by it. So a Swiss pilot would more than likely be given the benefit of the doubt that he is not smuggling a 50k watch in his rucksack/holdall. But les douaniers would be perfectly entitled, should they so wish to be at the airfield and make checks. If he is smuggling that 50k undeclared watch then the pilot would be in deep doo dah.Wearing or carrying personal items is not a felony selling it in France without declaring and paying tax would be.
Wearing or carrying personal items is not a felony selling it in France without declaring and paying tax would be.
That’s absolutely astonishing – because it is obviously unworkable. You could import anything if you are wearing it, declare it, and after x months the police will visit your home to check that you haven’t sold it.
Keeping this on the topic, this whole thing seems to be a worthless concession.
Almost nobody (other than French speakers, in France) will be willing to test this, on the value of “benefit of the doubt”. All you need is a police officer who, as we say here, got off the wrong side of the bed that morning.
Yes you are absolutely right, all it takes is a police or customs officer to get out of the wrong side of the bed one morning.
But isn’t that the same as going through the green channel at an airport or ferry port?
Or in fact on any road? You often see customs officers at the ends of an autoroute especially those which lead across borders.
They don’t even have to be in a bad mood they claim to have a nose for something/someone who looks a “wrong ’un”.🙂
But isn’t that the same as going through the green channel at an airport or ferry port?
Yes, but the only place you will be doing that at will be a designated port of entry. The actual list of those, for GA, is short, and it is all the others which are in discussion.
I thought we were discussing Swiss aircraft and the Mulhouse declaration.
It depends how you understand the words “goods, merchandise, baggage.”
IMO, I don’t think that the overnight clothing and toothbrush etc would be considered any of these. Isn’t the definition of crew personal belongings covered somewhere under ICAO?
I don’t see why a douanier would not accept that definition but one could always write to Mulhouse for further clarification.
One can find crew exemptions – example – but it doesn’t help with passengers. Also note that link would certainly not cover e.g. an expensive watch unless you had paperwork for it. Exactly as one would expect.
However we are still dealing with the “Luggage is considered as goods” clause – assuming it is a correct translation. It appears to undermine this entire concession.
