In Buenos Aires, on the 21st day of November 2002, the members of Chamber E, Drs. Catalina García Vizcaíno, D. Paula Winkler and Gustavo A. Krause Murguiondo, met, with the latter presiding, in order to render judgment in the case entitled: TORRES, ARIEL v. Directorate General of Customs, s/appeal, File No. 15.337-A., to which is added No. 15.338-A, FATA SEGUROS SA v. Directorate General of Customs, s/appeal.
Dr. Catalina García Vizcaíno said:
I) That on pages 8/10 Mr. Ariel Martín Torres, through his attorney, files an appeal against Resolution No. 996/00, dated 27/11/00, issued in summary case No. SA38/99/151 of the Mendoza Customs, by which charge No. 110/99 for the sum of $509.163,81 in taxes for an alleged failure to comply with the import transit is confirmed. He states that the charge was formulated for an apparent failure to comply with the transit documented by MIC/DTA No. 3.101/99 by the transport company, giving rise to the aforementioned charge, making it liable under the terms of arts. 312, 909 and 780 of the CA for the payment of the aforementioned sum. He points out that from the verification of the proceedings it would emerge that he is not and was not a representative of the means of transport, since he would not be accompanied or accredited as a transport agent of the means of transport. He adds that in the file he applied for the approval of a guarantee (surety insurance) for the fulfillment of a possible transit, for which reason he entered the OM 1190 where he does not even appear as importer and dispatcher and the customs service authorized it. He notes that he did not sign the MIC/DTA Nº 3101/99, the basis of the investigation, because he was never a representative of the means of transport, although the customs operation was authorized by the customs service. He concludes that he did not act as a transport agent of the means of transport, but as the taker of the surety insurance. Finally, he points out that the customs authorized the respective policies and the transit in question. In subsidiarity, he raises the unconstitutionality of arts. 312, 780 and 909 of the CA, insofar as they constitute the transport agent as jointly liable for the taxes and fines charged by the means of transport. The federal case is reserved and the appealed resolution is requested to be set aside.
II) That on pages 18/22 the fiscal representation answers the transfer that was duly conferred to it. It makes a review of the background that gave rise to the cause. It refers to the applicable regulations, transcribing arts. 311 and 312 of the CA, as well as what is established by art. 780 of the cited ordinance. It points out that from reading the regulations it is clear that the transport company, the customs transport agent - jointly - and the insurance company are responsible for the tax obligation generated on the transaction in question. It notes that there was an import transit operation that was declared with destination to the Paso de los Libres Customs, which in successive reports reported that the means of transport did not arrive at that Customs of exit, and whose final destination was Brazil, generating the tax obligation in the head of those responsible cited in the appealed resolution. The Court points out that the criteria upheld by the administrative body is correct, since the provisions of art. 311 of the CA have been applied to the case, which gives rise to a presumption that does not admit proof to the contrary, according to which the merchandise is considered imported for consumption for tax purposes. The Court maintains that when the legal period elapsed without the vehicle having arrived at the customs office of departure, the taxable event occurred, considering the merchandise as imported for consumption. Finally, the Court states that the claim of unconstitutionality is not admissible in accordance with the provisions of art. 1164 of the CA. It reserves the right to appeal the federal case and requests that the appealed decision be confirmed, with costs.
III) That on pages 34/43 back. Fata Seguros SA, through its representative, files an appeal against Resolution No. 996/2000, issued in Contentious Summary No. SA38-151-1999, by which the challenge procedure attempted by confirming charge No. 110/99 is rejected. He states that the customs transport agent, Mr. Ariel Martin Torres, representing the transport company Jaime Riffo Fajardo, submitted a transit request and, in order to comply with the guarantee regime, attached the Customs Guarantee Surety Bond No. 1.002.733, granted by him, which covered the merchandise documented in Land Bill No. 185/99, which stated Brazil as the destination and Paso de los Libres as the exit customs office. It states that, since the means of transport had not left that customs office, the aforementioned transport agent appeared requesting the cancellation of the guarantee granted, and that, subsequently, the Mendoza Customs reported the incident as an alleged crime of smuggling. He argues that the appealed decision is null and void, since the principle of due process has been violated, given that he was not given any role in the verification, classification and valuation of the merchandise, and taking into account that the incident procedure provided for in art. 1043 of the CA It is not the legal route provided for determining those responsible for taxes that are levied on the importation of goods for consumption in cases that are subject to a summary investigation. It also points out that the determination of the tax obligation and those responsible for it are part of the main objective of the procedure established for customs violations; that the Customs, when ordering the instruction of the summary, can only investigate the tax obligation and those responsible for it in the procedure regulated for customs violations and determine them in a concrete manner in the resolution that ends the summary. It considers that another irregularity was committed by not notifying the plaintiff of the order ordering the formation of an incident in accordance with the terms of art. 1043 of the CA, thus violating his right to defense. The Customs Service is considered incompetent, since by filing a criminal complaint for the commission of a crime it loses jurisdiction and cannot determine the tax obligation and the person responsible. He argues that the lack of jurisdiction based on the subject matter arises from art. 1026 inc. a) of Law 22.415, which establishes that the causes for the crimes provided for in Section XII, Title I, of the CA must be substantiated before a court. He argues that in the case of smuggling, art. 1 is not applicable. 311 of the CA, due to the specificity of the subject matter, since only the authors, accomplices, instigators, concealers or beneficiaries are responsible for the relevant taxes, as established in art. 782 of the CA Therefore, the person responsible for the taxes for the illegal import is not the transport company but the perpetrator of the illegal act; it follows from this that the plaintiff cannot be held responsible for what happened. It invokes the principle of non-extendability of criminal jurisdiction. Offers evidence, reserves the right to a federal case, and requests that the appealed Resolution be revoked and charge No. 110/99 be dismissed.
IV) That on pages 61/67 back, the public prosecutor's office answers the notification duly given to it regarding the insurer. It briefly reviews the proceedings and the grievances raised by the co-plaintiff. It raises an exception of res judicata, which is resolved on pages 82/83. It considers that the claim of nullity is inadmissible according to the provisions of art. 1051 of the CA, because the period established by this provision has elapsed. It states that the co-plaintiff was given the procedural opportunities provided for in the regulations and as regards its liability, it would follow that, as an insurer, it must be liable for the incident that occurred under the terms of the surety insurance policy it signed, with the transport company, the customs transport agent and the insurance company being responsible for the tax obligation generated in relation to the operation. Offers evidence, reserves the federal case and requests that the appeal be rejected, with costs.
V) That at fs. 101 the undersigned dictates a measure to better provide, which is produced at fs. 125. Since there is no evidence to produce in the instance, at fs. the cause is declared of pure law and the files are elevated to Chamber E, which passes them to sentence.
VI) That at fs. 1 of file EA38/99/151 contains the note dated 25/1/99 in which Mr. Ariel Martín Torres, in his capacity as Customs Transport Agent, presents a guarantee for the taxes and duties on the merchandise transported in a truck belonging to the Jaime Riffo Fajardo company, in accordance with the terms of Res. ANA 0428/97 ap. 17 and in the manner provided for land transit from country to country by Res. AFIP No. 0218/98, Annex IV, point 11; requests the release of the merchandise that is on a truck in a bonded warehouse in the Primary Customs Zone, so that the transit can continue with its final destination Brazil. Work on fs. 2 the Guarantee Control form No. 12/99 for the sum of $509.200, conf. Guarantee Policy No. 1.002.733. At fs. 3 shows Fax No. 020/99 dated 8/2/99 requesting information on the truck with license plate KX-1676/HFA-064, consignment note No. 185/99, Mic/Dta. No. 3101/99, belonging to the international transport company Jaime Raffo Fajardo, has left the Paso de los Libres Customs Office, to which the reply in Fax No. 198/99 states that it was possible to verify that the means of transport did not leave through that customs office. Added to fs. 6 the Customs Transit Declaration No. 150580, stating in it as the carrier Transportes Jaime Riffo Fajardo; Merchandise originating from the Free Trade Zone of Iquique -Chile-, destined for Uruguaiana -Brazil-. The vehicle has a verification seal from the National Gendarmerie dated 21/1/99 and that of the DGA dated the same date. At fs. 7, on 17/2/99, the order was issued by which the proceedings were sent for the execution of guarantee No. 12/99. At fs. 9 charge No. 110/99 is formulated for the amount of $509.163,81. At fs. 28 glosses the presentation of the dispatcher. At fs. 31 the presentation entered as file. EA38/99/1739 dated 16/2/99 by which Mr. Torres, as Customs Transport Agent, requests the cancellation of the guarantee that covered the transit in question. At fs. 37/38, Dn. Ariel Martín Torres requests a definitive dismissal for invoking lack of responsibility in the facts, in accordance with the terms of art. 1098 of the CA, requests a hearing of the proceedings, reserves rights and asks that the enforcement procedure be suspended. At fs. 8 of file added EA38/99/2876 the Mendoza Customs, on 13/5/99, reports that: no registration records were found in our computer system (Disp. 47/98) of the truck patents nos.- KX-1676, HFA-064 of the company of Lt. Jaime Riffo Fajardo. At fs. 55/56, on 3/8/99 the opening of the summary is ordered and on pages. 57, on 30/9/99, all the actions taken were reported to the carrier and the Transport Agent, as well as to the insurer. At fs. 67 It is reported that there are no records in relation to the domain KX-1676/HFA-064 in the Comodoro Rivadavia customs region. At fs. 72/76 the insurer responds to the request. At fs. 79/vta., on 23/9/99 the incompetence of the Mendoza Customs is declared, declining in favor of the Dept. Customs Legal Procedures. At fs. 80 is a glossary of a copy of Res. ANA No. 1722/96. At fs. 93, on 30/11/99 Mr. Torres and the question of pure law. At fs. 94/95 work copy of the presentation made by the Head of the Div. Mendoza Customs before the Federal Judge of the Court of Instruction No. 3 of Mendoza. At fs. 105 includes policy No. 1.002.733 issued on 22/1/99 for the sum of US$ 509.200 plus what could result in excess due to the application of art. 1122 of the CA that Jaime Riffo Fajardo is obliged to carry out. At fs. 109 the Act of Interdiction without the right to use the semi-trailer with domain HF A064, drawn up on 26/11/99, is in force. At fs. 110, Transport Agent Hilda M. Gago requests the transfer of the merchandise that is on the stopped truck. At fs. 133 Fax No. 645/99 dated 14/12/99 is added, informing the Mendoza Customs that the vehicle in question has been seized since 3/12/99 at the disposal of that customs. At fs. 146/147 vta., on 17/11/00 Opinion No. 1816/00 is issued and on 27/11/00 (pages. 148/150) Resolution No. 996/00 appealed in this case is issued.
VII) That although it is true that this Tax Court is not competent in matters of smuggling crimes (cfr. arts. 1025, 1026, 1028 and related of the CA), it is also true that in the present case Resolution No. 996/2000 (AD MEND) has been appealed, which has implied the rejection of the challenges filed against charge No. 110/99, which according to art. 1 of said Resolution has been formulated for the amount of the taxes that tax the import for consumption corresponding to the import transit operation registered by MIC DTA No. 3101/99 of the registry of this Customs Office, the amount of which amounts to the sum of $509.163,81 ….
Given the special characteristics of the case, in which it is not disputed that the merchandise in question did not arrive at the destination customs office within the stipulated period, I consider that this Court can examine the tax consequences of this non-compliance, regardless of the illegal act (crime or infraction) that may have been committed.
I consider that the appealed resolution is similar to a resolution issued in the challenge procedure, for which only this Tax Court is competent - art. 1025, par. 1, inc. a) of the CA-, which is exclusively appealable before the same art. 1132, par. 2 of the CA-, with the consequence that, once this type of resolution is final, it becomes res judicata under arts. 1139 and 1183 of the CA-.
VIII) That having considered the above, I will examine the grievances in the order in which the appeals were presented, which is why I will first analyze those of Mr. Ariel Martín Torres.
That the named does not dispute the failure to arrive the merchandise at the customs of destination within the granted period, that is, the failure to comply with the land transit that motivated charge 110/99 (see pages 8 and 13 of the ant. adm.) but rather states as grounds for the challenge that, despite the fact that under arts. 311, 312 and 780 of the CA the customs transport agent is jointly liable with the carrier for the taxes due to failure to comply with the import transit, he alleges that if one examines the present file, one can see at a glance that he is not and was not a representative of the means of transport, for which he refers to pages 1 and 6 of the ant. adm., and adds that he did not accompany or prove his status as a transport agent (representative) of the means of transport as required by art. 57 of the CA, since it would have been presented requesting the approval of a guarantee (surety insurance) for the fulfillment of a possible transit (pages 8 back/9 of the proceedings). He argues that he did not sign the MIC/DTA No. 3101/99 because he was not a representative of the means of transport and summarizes by highlighting that he did not act as a transport agent of the means of transport, but as the taker of the surety insurance.
That these arguments cannot prosper, since on page 1 of the administrative ant. Mr. Ariel Martín Torres submitted a document dated 25/1/99 to the Administrator of the Mendoza Customs in which reference he stated REQUESTS TRANSIT OF MERCHANDISE and in the body of the same he states that in his capacity as Customs Transport Agent (…) he comes to present GUARANTEE for the Liens and Taxes of the merchandise transported in a truck of the company JAIME RIFFO FAJARDO, in accordance with the provisions of Resol. ANA 0428/97 Section 17 and, in the manner provided for land transit from country to country by the current Resol. Gral. AFIP No. 0218/98 Annex IV point 11, dated 30/09/98 (BO. 06/10/98) (emphasis added). For this reason, it requests the release of the merchandise that is on the truck in a bonded warehouse (…) so that it continues in transit to its final destination: Brazil, and then records the data relating to the transport truck, the international waybill, the entry record, the MIC number (03101), the value of the merchandise, etc.
That what has been said means having acted in the terms of art. 57 of the CA, since it was in charge of the procedures related to the presentation of the means of transport and its loads before the customs service… So much so that, by virtue of its presentation as a customs transport agent and the guarantee provided, it expressly recognizes that the customs authorized (...) the transit in question (page 9 of the proceedings).
It should be noted that, in addition to presenting himself as a customs transport agent, he specifically stated the MIC number in his presentation dated 25/1/99, which he signed, which meant that he signed said document for the purposes of his liability. Note that he requested the release of the merchandise in question so that it could continue in transit to Brazil, from which it can be inferred that he did not only accompany the surety bond.
That section 17 of the aforementioned Resolution No. 428/97 establishes that: For the cases provided for in Sections b), c), d) and e) of Point 16 of this ANNEX [cases of nationalization of merchandise in internal transit at the customs office of entry], compliance with ANA Resolution No. 200/84 and its amendments shall be required when the destination of the merchandise is another State Party, except that a guarantee is constituted, in any of the forms provided for land transit, for the value declared in the MIC/DTA, of the highest rate of the Common External Tariff, the Statistical Rate, VAT and the payment on account of VAT and Income Tax, without the intervention of the Customs Broker.
This implies that the possibility of land transit was subject to the constitution of a guarantee for the taxes owed.
That according to section IV, point 11, of General Resolution of AFIP 218/98, in land transit the guarantee is exclusively limited to differences in rights and taxes. Fines are guaranteed in pesos.
That, on the other hand, by section 4 of the aforementioned Resolution 428/97, in the case of a foreign transport company such as the one in question (see MIC on fs. 6 of the ant. adm. in which it is stated that its domicile was in Santiago de Chile), it required that: The legal representatives of foreign companies must be registered as Customs Transport Agent before the Registry of the GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF CUSTOMS or be represented by a Customs Transport Agent registered in such capacity for the presentation of the MIC/DTA at the Customs Office of Departure…
That, since the carrier was not registered, it was necessary to act through a customs transport agent such as Mr. Ariel Martín Torrres.
Likewise, according to section 1 of the aforementioned Resolution, the merchandise subject to land transit destination within the framework of this Resolution 428/97 is subject to the conditions established in Article 310 and following of Law 22.415 in the case of lack, deterioration or destruction of the merchandise during its transport or due to non-compliance with the deadline and route of arrival at the Customs Office of Departure.
That art. 310 of the CA stipulates that: When merchandise subject to the import transit regime is missing, whether or not its import is subject to a prohibition, it will be presumed, without admitting evidence to the contrary and for tax purposes only, that it has been imported for consumption.
That, in addition, art. 311 of the CA provides that: After the period of ONE (1) month, counted from the expiration of the one that had been agreed for the fulfillment of the transit, without the means of transport that transports the merchandise subject to the import transit regime arriving at the exit or interior customs, as appropriate, whether or not its import is subject to a prohibition, it will be presumed, without admitting proof to the contrary and for tax purposes only, that it has been imported for consumption.
In the cases provided for in arts. 310 and 311 of the CA, the carrier or its agent, as the case may be, shall be considered the principal debtor of the corresponding tax obligations and the shippers, those who have the right to dispose of the merchandise and the beneficiaries of the import transit regime, who may invoke the benefit of exemption with respect to the principal debtor, shall be considered as subsidiarily responsible for payment, in a joint and several manner (art. 312 of the CA in accordance with art. 780 of that ordinance).
That from the above it is clear the tax liability of Mr. Ariel Martín Torres for the sum of $509.163,81 of charge 110/99 effectively guaranteed on fs. 2/vta. of the ant. adm.-, to which it is added that the aforementioned requested on fs. 31 of the ant. adm. (file EA38/99/1739), on 16/2/99, the cancellation of the guarantee that covered the transit in question, having presented himself as a Customs Transport Agent Reg. 00886/5-1.
IX) That, in accordance with the provisions of art. 1164 of the CA, this Court cannot rule on the claim of unconstitutionality of arts. 312, 780 and 909 of the CA that the appellant customs transport agent raises on pages 9/vta. of the proceedings.
X) That having established the foregoing, I will now examine the grievances of FATA SEGUROS SA, which on page 34 back. Ref. of the proceedings expressly recognizes that this Tax Court is competent to hear the contested resolution, having been issued in an appeal procedure filed under the terms of art. 1053, inc. a) of the CA.
That it also acknowledges having granted Surety Insurance Policy No. 1.002.733 for the Land Transit registered through MIC/DTA No. 3101, relative to the Land Bill No. 185/99 issued by the insured transport company; that "said transit recorded Brazil as its destination and Paso de los Libres as its Customs Office of Exit (page 35 Ref. of the autos)."
That, first of all, it should be noted that the nullity requested by FATA SEGUROS cannot prosper, because it was not invoked in a timely manner in accordance with the terms of art. 1051 of the CA.
That, in effect, although the five-day period provided for by this rule applies unless there is a special provision that sets a longer period, the appellant insurer was notified of charge 110/99 on 17/2/99 (see pages 9, 11 and 15 of the ant. adm.) and, subsequently, the notice was reiterated, being notified by notice on 22/2/99 (pages 24/25 of the ant. adm.), having presented itself on 4/3/99 requesting only the cancellation of the guarantee (file EA 38-99-2354 of pages 36 of the ant. adm.). This presentation is ratified on pages 49 of the ant. adm.
That the preliminary investigation was ordered on 3/8/99 (pages 55/56 of the previous administrative proceedings) and, after the insurer had been notified, it responded to the inquiry on pages 74/78 of the previous administrative proceedings, having only raised the exception of lack of jurisdiction, considering that a smuggling offence had been committed, and claims that it would not be liable for the taxes arising from the illegal act. In this regard, it invokes article 3 of the general conditions of the surety bond.
That, therefore, given its untimeliness, the so-called irregularity cannot be accepted, referring to the fact that the valuation report on pages 53/54 of the previous administrative proceedings was drawn up without the summons to this party, which invalidates it and turns it into a null act of absolute nullity and thus must be declared (pages 37 back Ref. of the proceedings).
Furthermore, it should be added that art. 1094, paragraph b) of the CA only requires the verification of the merchandise in the presence of the interested party, while the tariff classification and the valuation of the merchandise are functions of the customs service. Furthermore, it should be noted that in the present case no merchandise could be verified, since it was not located, which is why the customs service adhered to the tax liquidation guaranteed by the appellant insurer (see pages 2 back, 11, 13, 54 and 57 of the ant. adm.). Only the provenance of this liquidation of liens is discussed in the present case, since no fine was claimed from the insurer.
Nor can the claim that, by means of the incident provided for in art. 1143 of the CA, the persons responsible for the taxes could not have been determined prosper (pages 37 back/39 of the proceedings).
That this is so, given that the determination of the insurer's tax liability constitutes, in the present case, an issue that is susceptible to being processed in a separate piece, given the terms under which the surety bond was granted, and taking into account that said insurer did not even invoke that the merchandise complied with land transit, for which reason it is evident that the insured loss was configured, which makes applicable the provisions of art. 4 of the General Conditions of the Policy in question (fs. 105/vta. of the ant. adm.). The double jurisdiction with regard to customs crimes does not prevent the incident for which customs sought to satisfy the tax credit.
That art. 3 of the General Conditions of Policy No. 1.002.733 granted by the co-defendant provides that; Once the charge has been formulated by the corresponding customs department or there is a final resolution that establishes the responsibility of the Policyholder and the amount for which the guarantees subject to this policy must be affected, the National Customs Administration [now General Directorate of Customs] will have the right to require the Policyholder or the Insurer to make the relevant payment.
It should be noted that this rule does not require that the charge has become final in order to request payment from the Insurer (pages 105/vta. of the previous administrative documents), without prejudice to the compensation actions that the latter may bring against the other parties responsible for the tax obligation.
XI) That as regards the alleged irregularity of not having been notified of the order on fs. 140 of the ant. adm. by which the formation of the incident is ordered to make effective the guaranteed tax obligation, it should be noted that it is Supreme Court doctrine that when the restriction of the defense in court occurs in the procedure that is substantiated in an administrative headquarters, the effective violation of art. 18 of the CN does not occur as long as there is the possibility of correcting this restriction at a later jurisdictional stage (Judgments, 205-549, 247-52 consid. 1º., 267-393 consid. 12 and others), because the requirement of defense in court is satisfied by offering the possibility of appearing before a jurisdictional body in search of justice (Judgments, 205-549, consid. 5º and its citations) -TFN, Sala E, among others, Rivera, Alcides of 27/5/86, López Arispe, José, of 5/9/88-).
That in this instance the appellant has had ample opportunities to produce evidence, with the consequent correction of any irregularity that may have occurred at the customs office.
That, on the other hand, it is doctrine of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation that the challenge of arbitrariness is not applicable to a well-founded resolution or judgment, regardless of its correctness or error (Fallos, 243-560, 246-266, 248-584, 249-549), except in certain cases, such as, for example, the contradiction between the recitals and the operative part (cfr., among others, Scicolone, Manuel S. v. Prantera, Omar Alberto, et al., 26/11/91). It has also said that since the contested resolution is sufficiently well-founded, the express mention of all the arguments of the appellant is not required (among others, Fallos, 251-39). It should also be remembered that judges are not obliged to consider all the evidence produced in the case, but only those that they consider conducive to its correct solution and that, by means of the federal remedy, there should be no attempt to convert this Court into just another ordinary instance ("Rulings", 274-35, 276-132 and 248, 278-135, among many others) (Rulings, 301-676).
That, for the reasons stated above, the nullity raised on fs. 39/vta. Ref. of autos must also be rejected.
XII) That in view of the express provisions contained in Surety Insurance Policy No. 1.002.733 (see especially arts. 3 and 4 of its General Conditions, to which I referred in point X of this document; see pages 105/vta. of the adm. ant.) the customs service cannot be declared incompetent to formulate the tax charge to the appellant insurer, independently of the provisions of art. 782 of the CA, attentive, I reiterate, to the terms of the policy in question.
That, since this is a question of material tax law (tax liability for non-compliance with import transit), the principle of the non-extendability of jurisdiction in criminal matters, which the appellant insurer alleges on pages 41/42 of the case, cannot be invoked.
That, on the other hand, if - hypothetically - the crime of smuggling were to be established (since the respective proceedings are in the investigation stage; see fs. 125 of the proceedings), the provisions of art. 782 of the CA do not impede the liability of the insurer, since it expressly guaranteed the transit operation, which means that, whatever the illicit act committed, it undertook to satisfy the fiscal interest up to the limit provided for in the respective policy, the sum intimated being within the maximum insured amount.
Therefore, I vote for:
1st) Reject the exception of nullity raised by FATA SEGUROS SA, with costs.
2) To confirm Resolution No. 996/2000 (AD MEND) insofar as it has been the subject of the appeal. With costs.
3rd) The co-defendants shall be required to pay, within a period of five days, the balance of the fee for proceedings provided for in Law 22.610 and amendments, under penalty of issuing a certificate of debt.
Dr. Winkler said:
I substantially agree with the preceding vote.
Dr. Gustavo A. Krause Murguiondo said:
That agrees with the vote of Dr. García Vizcaíno.
In accordance with the above agreement, it is unanimously RESOLVED:
1st) Reject the exception of nullity raised by FATA SEGUROS SA, with costs.
2) To confirm Resolution No. 996/2000 (AD MEND) insofar as it has been the subject of the appeal. With costs.
3rd) The co-defendants shall be required to pay, within a period of five days, the balance of the fee for proceedings provided for in Law 22.610 and amendments, under penalty of issuing a certificate of debt.
Register, notify, promptly return and archive the administrative records.
