By reason of the foregoing, the payment order of two-fifty-two in the afternoon of November second, two thousand seventeen, is partially confirmed, the respondent being required to pay the principal sum of five million eight hundred sixty-five thousand two hundred thirty-six colones and twenty-two céntimos, plus default interest (intereses moratorios) accrued from September 23, 2004, to October 13, 2017, at the legal interest rate in the amount of three million four hundred twenty thousand eight hundred fifty colones and fifteen céntimos, an amount so limited by the plaintiff entity [...]\".
\n\nfor the tax payment of five million eight hundred sixty-five thousand two hundred thirty-six colones and twenty-two céntimos plus any interest generated, an obligation arising from the administrative declaration of ineffectiveness of exoneration authorizations for the importation of goods. The defendant company, notified of the judicial action, appeared and answered in the negative, raising the defense of statute of limitations (prescripción) for both the principal and its interest. The trial judge, in her substantive analysis, determined that, since the defendant company had been requested by the Public Administration to pay the indicated debt, each and every one of the notifications made at the administrative stage are validated, but clarifying that between one act and another, specifically between the payment request notified on October thirtieth, two thousand fourteen, and the notification of the judicial complaint on June twenty-fifth, two thousand eighteen, more than three years elapsed, so in application of Articles 51 and 52 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, with the normative text in force under law 7900, she determined that the obligation is time-barred (prescrita). The plaintiff entity filed an appeal against this ruling, pointing out that in this case the statute of limitations (prescripción) of the obligation has not occurred. It considers that the provisions of Article 62 of the Ley General de Aduanas should be applied, whose statute of limitations period is established at four years.\n\nFor its part, the defendant company, when expressing grievances, points out that by the appellant's own arguments, it is determined that from the twenty-seventh of February two thousand nine to the thirtieth of October two thousand fourteen, which are the dates on which the collection was processed, more than five years passed, hence the decreed statute of limitations (prescripción) must be confirmed.\n\n**V.- Regarding the statute of limitations (prescripción).** The grievances expressed by the State must be addressed and the decision revoked. The generating cause for the collection of the claimed taxes, according to the information contained in the foundational document of the proceeding and whose content has not been challenged by the defendant company, is that the Customs Administration of Golfito verified the use and destination of goods imported by the defendant and exempted from taxes in accordance with article 7 of Law 6990, specifically regarding boats with registration numbers PG-2685, PG-2686, PG-2687, PG-2688, PG-2689, PG-2690, PG-3335, PG-3336 and vehicle license plate TUR-02-0074; an exemption (exoneración) act that was declared ineffective, proceeding to collect the resulting tax obligation for a total amount of five million eight hundred sixty-five thousand two hundred thirty-six colones with twenty-two céntimos, plus its legal interest. The foregoing means that in this case, the applicable standard is that provided by the General Customs Law (Ley General de Aduanas) pursuant to its article 1, as well as, in a supplementary manner, the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios) (numeral 272 of the General Customs Law). Being in the presence of a special regulation, the rules to be used are those contained in articles 62 and 63 ibidem, which establish a four-year statute of limitations (prescripción) period and the grounds for its interruption.\n\nThis is fundamental because, for her decision, the First Instance Judge relied on the general regulations established by the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, which is incorrect given the special nature of the tax and its specific regulation. Having clarified the foregoing, we observe that the judgment develops, both in its section on proven facts and in its merits, an explanation of the distinct interrupting acts that have operated in this matter. It is true that the defendant corporation questions the proper service of process (notificación) of some of the administrative collection requirements in its opposition, but it is also true that the judge pointed out in this regard that: “In this understanding, the service of process of the payment requirements made to the defendant through administrative channels, with the first requirement served on November 16, 2012, and subsequently the second service of process on October 30, 2014, have interrupting effects on the statute of limitations (prescripción).” This reasoning has never been challenged by the defendant corporation, which, in its grievances before this Chamber, limits itself to pointing out that, in this case, periods of inertia exceeding five years have elapsed, without questioning the validation of these communications made by the judge. The consequence of the foregoing is that the distinct interrupting acts indicated by the judgment are valid and must be considered in the second instance to determine a final solution to the defense invoked.\n\nIn that understanding, there are five interruptive acts, the first four operated in the administrative venue and the last in the judicial venue: **1-** Notification of Resolution No. 172-2008 09:30 September 17, 2008, notified to the defendant on September 23, 2008, via Fax 22857-2055. **2-** Notification of Resolution No. 03-09 dated January 15, 2009, notified to the defendant on 26-02-2009. **3-** Payment demand notified on November 16, 2012, via fax number 2257-2035. **4-** Payment demand notified on October 30, 2014, via fax 2257-2035). **5-** Notification of the judicial proceeding of June 25, 2018. In application of Article 62, in conjunction with numeral 63, both of the General Customs Law (Ley General de Aduanas), also by normative integration of ordinal 52 of the Tax Code of Norms and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios) (wording in force pursuant to Ley 7900), it follows that between the various described interruptive acts, the fatal four-year term established by the first norm did not elapse.\n\nThus, the main claimed obligation still subsists to this day and the judgment deserves to be overturned [...]\n\nBy reason of the foregoing, the payment order issued at fourteen hours and fifty-two minutes on the second of November of two thousand seventeen is partially confirmed, the respondent being obliged to pay the principal sum of five million eight hundred sixty-five thousand two hundred thirty-six colones with twenty-two céntimos, plus default interest (intereses moratorios) generated from September 23, 2004 to October 13, 2017 at the legal interest rate in the sum of three million four hundred twenty thousand eight hundred fifty colones with fifteen céntimos, an amount thus determined by the plaintiff entity [...]." }