T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
FORS MOB\u0130LYA AKSESUARLARI SANAY\u0130 VE T\u0130CARET A.\u015e.<\/p>\n
BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/10220)<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 18\/7\/2024<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Engin YILDIRIM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
\u015eahap KAYMAK<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Fors Mobilya Aksesuarlar\u0131 Sanayi ve Ticaret A.\u015e.<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. S\u00fcphi Y\u0130\u011e\u0130T<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, tahakkuk ettirilen vergi ve para cezas\u0131n\u0131n iptali talebiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan davada davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili iddian\u0131n kararda kar\u015f\u0131lanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvurucu, muhtelif tarihli g\u00fcmr\u00fck giri\u015f beyannamelerinde e\u015fyan\u0131n \u0130spanya men\u015feili olarak beyan edilmesine kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k \u00c7in Halk Cumhuriyeti men\u015feili oldu\u011funun tespit edildi\u011finden bahisle ek katma de\u011fer vergisi ve antidamping vergisi (yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131 ihracat\u0131n\u0131 art\u0131rmak i\u00e7in uygulanan bir \u00e7e\u015fit vergi) tahakkuk ettirilmesine ili\u015fkin i\u015flem ile para cezas\u0131 verilmesine ili\u015fkin i\u015fleme kar\u015f\u0131 yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 itiraz\u0131n reddine y\u00f6nelik i\u015flemin iptali talebiyle Vergi Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Mahkeme, davan\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015f; karar gerek\u00e7esinde ba\u015fvurucu ad\u0131na tescilli serbest dola\u015f\u0131ma giri\u015f beyannamesi ekinde ibraz edilen toplam 31 A.TR dola\u015f\u0131m belgesinin vize edildi\u011fi \u0130spanya g\u00fcmr\u00fck idaresinden belgelerin do\u011frulu\u011funun kontrol\u00fcn\u00fc sa\u011flamak amac\u0131yla daval\u0131 idarece e\u015fyan\u0131n \u00fcretici firmas\u0131n\u0131n kim oldu\u011funu, men\u015fe kazan\u0131p kazanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, men\u015fenin ne oldu\u011fu konusunda ara\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Bu ara\u015ft\u0131rmaya istinaden s\u00f6z konusu hususlar\u0131n \u0130spanya g\u00fcmr\u00fck idaresinden sorulmas\u0131 \u00fczerine al\u0131nan cevabi yaz\u0131da muhtelif tarihli ve say\u0131l\u0131 31 A.TR dola\u015f\u0131m belgesinin kendileri taraf\u0131ndan verildi\u011fini, i\u00e7erdi\u011fi bilgilerin do\u011fru oldu\u011funu, bu belgeler \u00fczerindeki m\u00fch\u00fcr ve imzalar\u0131n ger\u00e7e\u011fi yans\u0131tt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ancak dola\u015f\u0131m belgelerindeki sekiz numaral\u0131 kutuda yer alan ifadenin hatal\u0131 oldu\u011funu ve bu nedenle e\u015fyan\u0131n \u00c7in Halk Cumhuriyeti men\u015feli oldu\u011funun bildirildi\u011fine i\u015faret ederek \u0130spanya g\u00fcmr\u00fck idaresinin yaz\u0131s\u0131n\u0131 h\u00fckme esas almak suretiyle dava konusu i\u015flemlerin hukuka uygun bulundu\u011fu sonucuna ula\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Bu karara kar\u015f\u0131 ba\u015fvurucunun istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmas\u0131 \u00fczerine \u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi 5. Vergi Dava Dairesi (B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi) ek katma de\u011fer vergisi ve antidamping vergisi tahakkuk ettirilmesine ili\u015fkin i\u015fleme kar\u015f\u0131 yap\u0131lan itiraz\u0131n reddine y\u00f6nelik i\u015flem y\u00f6n\u00fcnden Mahkeme karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 yap\u0131lan istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun reddine karar vermi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge \u0130dare Mahkemesi, para cezas\u0131 verilmesine ili\u015fkin i\u015fleme kar\u015f\u0131 yap\u0131lan itiraz\u0131n reddine y\u00f6nelik i\u015flem y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ise istinaf ba\u015fvurusunu kabul ederek Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n bu k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131 kald\u0131r\u0131p i\u015flemi iptal etmi\u015f; karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde somut olayda ithal edilen e\u015fyan\u0131n tarife uygulamas\u0131n\u0131 etkileyen unsurlar\u0131nda veya vergilendirmeye esas olan \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fclerinde veya k\u0131ymetinde herhangi bir ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k tespit edilmedi\u011fini, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla cezay\u0131 gerektiren fiiller aras\u0131nda vergi matrah\u0131n\u0131n noksan beyan edilmesi fiilinin say\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Taraflar\u0131n temyiz ba\u015fvurusunun Dan\u0131\u015ftay Yedinci Dairesi (Daire) taraf\u0131ndan kesin olarak reddedilerek karar\u0131n onanmas\u0131 \u00fczerine s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
6. Komisyon 2020\/10222, 2020\/10223, 2020\/10225 ve 2020\/10226 numaral\u0131 ba\u015fvurular\u0131n 2020\/10220 numaral\u0131 ba\u015fvuru ile birle\u015ftirilmesine karar vermi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
7. Ba\u015fvurucu; ithal etti\u011fi e\u015fyan\u0131n men\u015fe \u00fclke ile ilgili sadece \u0130spanya g\u00fcmr\u00fck idaresinin beyan\u0131 esas al\u0131narak karar verildi\u011finden, e\u015fyan\u0131n \u00c7in Halk Cumhuriyeti men\u015feili oldu\u011funa dair somut bir belgenin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, men\u015fe \u015fehadetnamesinin hatal\u0131 tanzimi h\u00e2linde ihracat\u00e7\u0131 firman\u0131n sorumlulu\u011funun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ve ek vergi tahakkuk ettirilemeyece\u011fine y\u00f6nelik d\u00fczenlemenin dikkate al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
8. Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Bakanl\u0131k), ba\u015fvuruya ili\u015fkin olarak Ticaret Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 Hukuk Hizmetleri Genel M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden temin edilen g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f ve ilgili belgelerin yap\u0131lacak incelemede dikkate al\u0131nmak \u00fczere g\u00f6nderildi\u011fini belirtmi\u015f; adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edilip edilmedi\u011fi iddias\u0131 konusunda inceleme yap\u0131l\u0131rken Anayasa ve ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri ile somut olay\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir.Ba\u015fvurucu, Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131 beyanda bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
9. Ba\u015fvuru, gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
10. A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilmesini gerektirecek ba\u015fka bir neden de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
11. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131 g\u00fcvencesini de kapsamaktad\u0131r (daha geni\u015f de\u011ferlendirme i\u00e7in bkz. Abdullah Top\u00e7u, B. No: 2014\/8868, 19\/4\/2017, \u00a7 75). Nitekim Anayasa’n\u0131n 141. maddesinin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131nda “B\u00fct\u00fcn mahkemelerin her t\u00fcrl\u00fc kararlar\u0131 gerek\u00e7eli olarak yaz\u0131l\u0131r.” denilerek mahkemelere kararlar\u0131n\u0131 gerek\u00e7eli yazma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc y\u00fcklenmi\u015ftir. Mahkemelerin an\u0131lan y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, yarg\u0131lamada ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen her t\u00fcrl\u00fc iddia ve savunmaya karar gerek\u00e7esinde ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 yan\u0131t vermesi gerekti\u011fi \u015feklinde anla\u015f\u0131lamaz. Ancak mahkemeler, kendilerine sunulan t\u00fcm iddialara yan\u0131t vermek zorunda de\u011filse de (Yasemin Ek\u015fi, B. No: 2013\/5486, 4\/12\/2013, \u00a7 56) mahkemelerin davan\u0131n esas sorunlar\u0131n\u0131 inceledikleri gerek\u00e7eli karardan anla\u015f\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r. Bir kararda tam olarak hangi unsurlar\u0131n bulunmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi davan\u0131n niteli\u011fine ve \u015fartlar\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131d\u0131r. Muhakeme s\u0131ras\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131k ve somut bir bi\u00e7imde \u00f6ne s\u00fcr\u00fclen iddia ve savunmalar\u0131n davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili, ba\u015fka bir deyi\u015fle davan\u0131n sonucunu de\u011fi\u015ftirebilecek nitelikte olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde davayla do\u011frudan ilgili olan bu hususlara mahkemelerce makul bir gerek\u00e7e ile yan\u0131t verilmesi gerekir (Sencer Ba\u015fat ve di\u011ferleri [GK], B. No: 2013\/7800, 18\/6\/2014, \u00a7 35). Aksi bir tutumla mahkemenin davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili oldu\u011funu kabul etti\u011fi bir husus hakk\u0131nda ilgili ve yeterli bir yan\u0131t vermemesi veya yan\u0131t vermeyi gerektiren usul veya esasa dair iddialar\u0131 cevaps\u0131z b\u0131rakmas\u0131 hak ihlaline neden olabilecektir (Sencer Ba\u015fat ve di\u011ferleri, \u00a7 39).<\/p>\n
12. \u00d6te yandan istinaf\/temyiz merciinin yarg\u0131lamay\u0131 yapan mahkemenin karar\u0131n\u0131 uygun bulmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde bunu ya ayn\u0131 gerek\u00e7eyi kullanarak ya da bir at\u0131fla karar\u0131na yans\u0131tmas\u0131 yeterlidir. Burada \u00f6nemli olan husus istinaf\/temyiz merciinin bir \u015fekilde istinafta\/temyizde dile getirilmi\u015f ana unsurlar\u0131 inceledi\u011fini, mahkemenin karar\u0131n\u0131 inceleyerek onad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ya da bozdu\u011funu g\u00f6stermesidir (baz\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikliklerle birlikte bkz. Yasemin Ek\u015fi, \u00a7 57). Ancak istinaf\/temyiz incelemesi s\u0131ras\u0131nda ayr\u0131 ve a\u00e7\u0131k bir yan\u0131t verilmesini gerektiren usul veya esasa dair iddialar\u0131n istinaf\/temyiz merciilerince cevaps\u0131z b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131 gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlaline neden olabilir (baz\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikliklerle birlikte bkz. Caner Kand\u0131rmaz, B. No: 2013\/3672, 30\/12\/2014, \u00a7 31).<\/p>\n
13. Anayasa Mahkemesinin gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131 ba\u011flam\u0131ndaki g\u00f6revi, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n esas\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131yan meselelere ili\u015fkin olarak yarg\u0131 mercilerinin ilgili ve yeterli bir gerek\u00e7e ortaya koyup koymad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 incelemekten ibarettir. Anayasa Mahkemesinin yarg\u0131 mercilerinin a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a keyf\u00ee olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 veya bariz bir takdir hatas\u0131 i\u00e7ermedi\u011fi s\u00fcrece gerek\u00e7elerini denetleme gibi bir g\u00f6revi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi mahkeme kararlar\u0131ndaki hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131klar\u0131 gidermek de Anayasa Mahkemesinin g\u00f6revi de\u011fildir (Halit Kabada\u011f, B. No: 2019\/3589, 23\/11\/2021, \u00a7 30).<\/p>\n
14. Ba\u015fvurucunun temel iddias\u0131 ithal etti\u011fi e\u015fyan\u0131n men\u015fe \u00fclke ile ilgili ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve esasa etkili oldu\u011funu belirtti\u011fi hususlar\u0131n g\u00f6zetilmeden karar verilmesine ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
15. Somut olayda ba\u015fvurucunun \u0130spanya’dan ithal etti\u011fi \u00e7ekmece ray\u0131 ve mente\u015felerin men\u015fenin incelenmesi kapsam\u0131nda G\u00fcmr\u00fck ve Ticaret Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 Rehberlik ve Tefti\u015f Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00fcmr\u00fck ve ticaret ba\u015fm\u00fcfetti\u015fi taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen 26\/2\/2016 tarihli raporda (rapor) A.TR dola\u015f\u0131m belgelerinin do\u011fru olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. Raporda \u00f6zetle, \u00c7in Halk Cumhuriyetinden ithal edilen 83.02.10, 83.02.42 ve 83.02.50 g\u00fcmr\u00fck tarife pozisyonlu mente\u015fe, \u00e7ekmece ray\u0131 ve ask\u0131l\u0131k cinsi e\u015fyaya uygulanan antidamping vergisi nedeniyle bu vergiden ka\u00e7\u0131nmak i\u00e7in s\u00f6z konusu e\u015fyan\u0131n \u00fclkemize \u0130spanya ve \u0130talya men\u015feli beyan edilerek ithal edildi\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde iddialar\u0131n bulundu\u011fu ifade edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun ithal etti\u011fi e\u015fyan\u0131n \u0130spanya men\u015feli oldu\u011fu hususunda ciddi \u015f\u00fcphelere ula\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilerek ithalat\u00e7\u0131 firmalardan yap\u0131lan 83.02 g\u00fcmr\u00fck tarife pozisyonlu e\u015fya ithalatlar\u0131na ili\u015fkin ibraz edilen men\u015fe ispat belgelerinin ihracat\u00e7\u0131 \u00fclke nezdinde sonradan kontrol\u00fcn\u00fcn yap\u0131lmas\u0131, yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131 yaz\u0131\u015fmas\u0131nda ihra\u00e7 edilen e\u015fyan\u0131n kimin taraf\u0131ndan \u00fcretildi\u011fi, men\u015fe kazan\u0131p kazanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 veya men\u015feinin ne oldu\u011funun sorulmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fine i\u015faret edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
16. Bunun \u00fczerine Dilovas\u0131 G\u00fcmr\u00fck M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnce ba\u015fvurucuya ait muhtelif tarihli A.TR dola\u015f\u0131m belgelerinin vize edildi\u011fi \u0130spanya g\u00fcmr\u00fck idaresinden do\u011fruluk ve ger\u00e7ekli\u011finin kontrol\u00fcn\u00fc sa\u011flamak \u00fczere \u00fcretici firman\u0131n kim oldu\u011fu, men\u015fe kazan\u0131p kazanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ile men\u015feinin ne oldu\u011fu konusunda ara\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucuya ait GA0181505, GA0181506 ve GA0181508 say\u0131l\u0131 A.TR dola\u015f\u0131m belgelerinin sonradan kontrol\u00fcne ili\u015fkin olarak \u0130spanya G\u00fcmr\u00fck \u0130daresinin 4\/11\/2016 tarihli yaz\u0131s\u0131nda, bu dola\u015f\u0131m belgelerinin kendi \u00fclkelerindeki ilgili g\u00fcmr\u00fck idaresi taraf\u0131ndan verildi\u011fi, i\u00e7erdi\u011fi bilgilerin do\u011fru ve belgeler \u00fczerindeki m\u00fch\u00fcr ve imzalar\u0131n ger\u00e7ek oldu\u011fu, belgeler muhteviyat\u0131 e\u015fyan\u0131n G\u00fcmr\u00fck Birli\u011fi Anla\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131n 1\/95 numaral\u0131 karar h\u00fckm\u00fcne uygun olarak tercihli i\u015flemden yararlanabilece\u011fi ancak belgelerin sekiz numaral\u0131 kutusunda yer alan ifadenin hatal\u0131 ve ithal edilen e\u015fyan\u0131n \u00c7in Halk Cumhuriyeti men\u015feli oldu\u011fu bildirilmi\u015ftir. Yine GA0208851 ve GA0208852 say\u0131l\u0131 A.TR dola\u015f\u0131m belgelerinin sonradan kontrol\u00fcne y\u00f6nelik olarak \u0130spanya g\u00fcmr\u00fck idaresinin 7\/11\/2016 tarihli yaz\u0131s\u0131nda da ayn\u0131 hususlara de\u011finilmi\u015ftir. Bu do\u011frultuda muhtelif tarih ve say\u0131l\u0131 be\u015f serbest dola\u015f\u0131ma giri\u015f beyannamesi i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurucu aleyhine katma de\u011fer vergisi ile antidamping vergisi olarak toplam 1.077.789,83 TL tutar\u0131nda ek tahakkuk yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve an\u0131lan vergiler y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ba\u015fvurucuya 3.233.369,49 TL tutar\u0131nda para cezas\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
17. Ba\u015fvurucu, yarg\u0131lama s\u00fcrecinde ve formda 27\/10\/1999 tarihli ve 4458 say\u0131l\u0131 G\u00fcmr\u00fck Kanunu’nun 198. maddesinin (4) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca men\u015fe veya A.TR dola\u015f\u0131m belgelerini hatal\u0131 olarak onaylayan ihracat\u00e7\u0131 g\u00fcmr\u00fck idaresinin bu belgeyi yanl\u0131\u015fl\u0131kla onaylad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kabul etmesi durumunda \u00fczerine d\u00fc\u015fen t\u00fcm \u00f6zeni g\u00f6sterdi\u011fini ispat edebilen y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcn\u00fcn sorumluluktan kurtulmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir. Ayr\u0131ca \u0130spanyol firmas\u0131nca \u00fcretilen e\u015fyan\u0131n men\u015fenin farkl\u0131 \u00fclke olmas\u0131 durumunun bilinemeyece\u011fini, men\u015fe belgelerini idareye sundu\u011funu, \u00fczerine d\u00fc\u015fen \u00f6zen y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc tam olarak yerine getirdi\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
18. Mahkeme, \u0130spanya g\u00fcmr\u00fck idaresinin A.TR dola\u015f\u0131m belgelerinin sekiz numaral\u0131 kutusundaki “Topluluk men\u015felidir.” ifadesinin yanl\u0131\u015fl\u0131kla yaz\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve ithal edilen e\u015fyan\u0131n \u00c7in Halk Cumhuriyeti men\u015feli oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki yaz\u0131s\u0131n\u0131 h\u00fckme esas alarak ek katma de\u011fer vergisi ve antidamping vergisi tahakkuk ettirilmesine ili\u015fkin i\u015fleme kar\u015f\u0131 yap\u0131lan itiraz\u0131n reddine y\u00f6nelik i\u015flemi hukuka uygun bulmu\u015ftur. Bu gerek\u00e7e, istinaf ve temyiz kanun yolu incelemelerinde de yeterli g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
19. Ancak Mahkeme 4458 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 198. maddesinin (4) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde \u0130spanya G\u00fcmr\u00fck \u0130daresince A.TR dola\u015f\u0131m belgelerinde yer alan “Topluluk men\u015felidir.” ifadesinin hatal\u0131 olarak onaylan\u0131p onaylanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, e\u011fer hatal\u0131 olarak onaylanm\u0131\u015fsa ba\u015fvurucunun g\u00fcmr\u00fck mevzuat\u0131n\u0131n gerektirdi\u011fi y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerin yerine getirilmesinde t\u00fcm \u00f6zeni g\u00f6sterip g\u00f6stermedi\u011fini ara\u015ft\u0131rmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu hususta istinaf ve temyiz mercileri de herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirmede bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130spanya G\u00fcmr\u00fck \u0130daresinin dola\u015f\u0131m belgelerinin hatal\u0131 d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi beyan\u0131, ba\u015fvurucu hakk\u0131nda ek vergi tahakkuku yap\u0131lmas\u0131 sonucunu do\u011furmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
20. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve davan\u0131n sonucunu de\u011fi\u015ftirebilecek nitelikteki iddias\u0131 makul bir gerek\u00e7e ile cevapland\u0131r\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Buna g\u00f6re Mahkemenin davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili olabilecek bir olguyu de\u011ferlendirmeden neticeye varmas\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlaline yol a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
21. Di\u011fer yandan bu ihlal karar\u0131n\u0131n davan\u0131n sonucuyla ilgili herhangi bir de\u011ferlendirme i\u00e7ermedi\u011fi vurgulanmal\u0131d\u0131r. Zira gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131, taraflara yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fckleri iddialar\u0131n\u0131n kurallara uygun bi\u00e7imde incelenip incelenmedi\u011fini bilmelerine imk\u00e2n sa\u011flayan bir hak olup yarg\u0131lama sonucuna y\u00f6nelik bir teminat sa\u011flamaz. Bu itibarla Anayasa Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da belirtti\u011fi ihlal gerek\u00e7elerini g\u00f6zeterek ve s\u00f6z konusu iddiayla ilgili olarak yeniden bir de\u011ferlendirme yaparak gereken karar\u0131 vermek yine yarg\u0131lama mercilerinin takdirindedir.<\/p>\n
22. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M <\/p>\n
23. Ba\u015fvurucu; ihlalin tespiti ile yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
24. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen hak ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar bulunmaktad\u0131r. Bu kapsamda karar\u0131n g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi yarg\u0131 mercilerince yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f, yeniden yarg\u0131lama i\u015flemlerini ba\u015flatmak ve Anayasa Mahkemesini ihlal sonucuna ula\u015ft\u0131ran nedenleri gideren, ihlal karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkelere uygun yeni bir karar vermektir (Mehmet Do\u011fan [GK], B. No: 2014\/8875, 7\/6\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 54-60; Alig\u00fcl Alkaya ve di\u011ferleri (2), B. No: 2016\/12506, 7\/11\/2019, \u00a7\u00a7 53-60, 66; Kadri Enis Berbero\u011flu (3) [GK], B. No: 2020\/32949, 21\/1\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 93-100).<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere Kocaeli 1. Vergi Mahkemesine (E.2017\/99, K.2017\/1083), Tekirda\u011f Vergi Mahkemesine (E.2016\/714, K.2017\/278), Kocaeli 1. Vergi Mahkemesine (E.2016\/1699, K.2017\/555), Tekirda\u011f Vergi Mahkemesine (E.2017\/85, K.2017\/279), \u0130stanbul 3. Vergi Mahkemesine (E.2018\/791, K.2018\/1519) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
D. 2.234,50 TL har\u00e7 ve 18.800 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 21.034,50 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. \u00d6demenin karar\u0131n tebli\u011fini takiben ba\u015fvurucunun Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ba\u015fvuru tarihinden itibaren d\u00f6rt ay i\u00e7inde yap\u0131lmas\u0131na, \u00f6demede gecikme olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde bu s\u00fcrenin sona erdi\u011fi tarihten \u00f6deme tarihine kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre i\u00e7in yasal FA\u0130Z UYGULANMASINA,<\/p>\n
F. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 18\/7\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 18\/7\/2024 tarihli ve 2020\/10220 ba\u015fvuru numaral\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130 ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 FORS MOB\u0130LYA AKSESUARLARI SANAY\u0130 VE T\u0130CARET A.\u015e. BA\u015eVURUSU \u00a0 (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2020\/10220) Karar Tarihi: 18\/7\/2024 \u00a0 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Engin YILDIRIM \u00a0 \u00a0 R\u0131dvan G\u00dcLE\u00c7 \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR Raport\u00f6r : \u015eahap KAYMAK Ba\u015fvurucu : Fors Mobilya Aksesuarlar\u0131 Sanayi ve Ticaret A.\u015e. Vekili : Av. S\u00fcphi Y\u0130\u011e\u0130T \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, tahakkuk ettirilen vergi ve para cezas\u0131n\u0131n iptali talebiyle a\u00e7\u0131lan davada davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili iddian\u0131n kararda kar\u015f\u0131lanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle gerek\u00e7eli karar hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvurucu, muhtelif tarihli g\u00fcmr\u00fck giri\u015f beyannamelerinde e\u015fyan\u0131n \u0130spanya men\u015feili olarak beyan edilmesine kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k \u00c7in Halk Cumhuriyeti men\u015feili oldu\u011funun tespit edildi\u011finden bahisle ek katma de\u011fer vergisi ve antidamping vergisi (yurt d\u0131\u015f\u0131 ihracat\u0131n\u0131 art\u0131rmak i\u00e7in uygulanan bir \u00e7e\u015fit vergi) tahakkuk ettirilmesine ili\u015fkin i\u015flem ile para cezas\u0131 verilmesine ili\u015fkin i\u015fleme kar\u015f\u0131 yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 itiraz\u0131n reddine y\u00f6nelik i\u015flemin iptali talebiyle Vergi Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) dava a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Mahkeme, davan\u0131n reddine karar vermi\u015f; karar gerek\u00e7esinde ba\u015fvurucu ad\u0131na tescilli serbest dola\u015f\u0131ma giri\u015f beyannamesi ekinde ibraz edilen toplam 31 A.TR dola\u015f\u0131m belgesinin vize edildi\u011fi \u0130spanya g\u00fcmr\u00fck idaresinden belgelerin do\u011frulu\u011funun kontrol\u00fcn\u00fc sa\u011flamak amac\u0131yla daval\u0131 idarece e\u015fyan\u0131n \u00fcretici firmas\u0131n\u0131n kim …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1883","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n