LEGAL VOID IN THE CUSTOMS LAW REGARDING LAWSUITS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS WITH THE TAX LAW
KEKOSONGAN HUKUM UPAYA GUGATAN DALAM UNDANG-UNDANG KEPABEANAN: ANALISIS PERBANDINGAN DENGAN UNDANG-UNDANG PERPAJAKAN
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36913/adhaper.v12i1.30Keywords:
Taxation, customs, lawsuit remedy, legal vacuum, Pajak, Bea Cukai, ganti tugi dalam gugatan, kekosongan hukumAbstract
Law No. 10 of 1995 on Customs, as amended by Law No. 17 of 2006, does not recognize a lawsuit remedy as a legal avenue. Instead, it provides objection, correction of assessment, reduction or cancellation of administrative sanctions, judicial review, and appeal to the Tax Court. This differs from Law No. 6 of 1983 on General Provisions and Tax Procedures, last amended by Law No. 6 of 2023 on Job Creation, which expressly provides a lawsuit remedy in addition to appeal. This regulatory difference creates a legal vacuum in the customs dispute settlement system, because many administrative decisions issued by customs authorities are more appropriately challenged through a lawsuit than through an appeal. In practice, customs disputes frequently end with inadmissibility rulings when the disputed decision is considered not to qualify as an object of lawsuit. Furthermore, the customs appeal requirement that obliges full payment of import duty, export duty, and import related taxes before an application is filed imposes an additional burden on justice seekers, especially when the dispute concerns procedural issues only. This condition produces uncertainty in legal protection for importers, exporters, and customs service users who face administrative decisions beyond tariff classification and customs valuation. This study analyzes the legal vacuum concerning lawsuit remedies in the customs system by comparing it with the tax law framework. It uses normative legal research with statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. The findings are expected to contribute to the development of customs law and to encourage reform of the Customs Law to achieve harmonization with tax law and to ensure adequate legal protection for affected parties.
References
Abdulkadir Muhammad. Hukum Dan Penelitian Hukum. Bandung: PT Citra Aditya Bakti, 2004.
Aji, Wahyu Kartika, Ristanti Khusnul Khosafiah, Teta Dirgantara Jusikusuma, and Ferry Irawan. “Penyelesaian Sengketa Pajak Atas Gugatan Dan Sanggahan: Suatu Perspektif Keadilan.” Jurnal Pajak Indonesia 6, no. 1 (2022). https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a0d3/4e095d6dc05a8fcf9238ea3770e8ac90ceef.pdf.
Akhmad Firdiansyah. “Penetapan Klasifikasi Tarif Pos Komoditas Emas Batangan (Gold Cast Bar) Ke Daerah Pabean Indonesia.” Jurnal Perspektif Bea Dan Cukai 6, no. 1 (2022). https://doi.org/10.31092/jpbc.v6i1.1565.
Ardiansyah, Dhika, and Widyartika. “Kewenangan Pengadilan Pajak Dalam Memutuskan Sengketa Barang Dikuasai Negera Dalam Rangka Kepabeanan Dan Cukai.” Journal Evidence Of Law 4, no. 2 (2025). https://doi.org/10.59066/jel.v4i2.1572.
Dwi Ratmono. “Model Kepatuhan Perpajakan Sukarela: Peran Denda, Keadilan Prosedural, Dan Kepercayaan Terhadap Otoritas Pajak.” Jurnal Akuntansi Dan Auditing Indonesia 22, no. 2 (2022). https://doi.org/10.20885/jaai.vol18.iss1.art4.
Hariyasin. “Kekosongan Upaya Hukum Gugatan Bidang Kepabeanan Di Indonesia.” Waska Hukum 11, no. 2 (2023). https://www.ojs.stihsa-bjm.ac.id/index.php/wasaka/article/view/95.
Hasanah, Noor, Rr Fitri, Diah Anggraeni, Indra Pahala, Puji Wahono, Sengketa Pajak, and Konsultan Pajak. “Analisis Sengketa Pajak Di Indonesia: Perspektif Konsultan Dan Fiskus.” JIIP - Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Pendidikan 8, no. 2 (February 1, 2025): 1342–49. https://doi.org/10.54371/JIIP.V8I2.7040.
Havida Jadidyah, and Agus Priyono. “Kedudukan Pengadilan Pajak Dan Perbandingannya Dengan Sengketa Tata Usaha Negara Di Indonesia.” Legal Standing Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 9, no. 4 (2025). https://doi.org/10.24269/ls.v9i4.11726.
Hidayat, Taufiq, Ramlani L. Sinaulan, and Hedwig A. Mau. “Pengenaan Sanksi Administrasi Berupa Denda Atas Koreksi Nilai Pabean Impor Oleh Pejabat Bea Dan Cukai.” Jurnal Perspektif-Jayabaya Journal of Public Administration 23, no. 1 (2023).
Ibnususilo, Efendi, Fithriatus Shalihah, Nisa Istiani, and Faqiah Nur Azizah. “Legal Discovery in Indonesia’s Tax Dispute Framework.” Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System 5, no. 1 (2025). https://doi.org/10.53955/jhcls.v5i1.496.
Jimly Asshiddiqie. Konstitusi Dan Konstitusionalisme Indonesia. Jakarta: Konstitusi Press, 2005.
Kurniawan, Iwan. “Sengketa Pengajuan Banding Terhadap Penetapan Nilai Kepabeanan Dalam Ekspor-Impor: (Analisis Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor: PUT-52674/PP/M.XVIIA/19/2014).” KRTHA BHAYANGKARA 13, no. 2 (December 26, 2019): 208–22. https://doi.org/10.31599/KRTHA.V13I2.6.
Lestari, Fitri, and R. S. Tobing. “Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Wajib Pajak Melalui Mekanisme Gugatan Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pajak.” Jurnal Pajak Indonesia 7, no. 1 (2023).
Marmiyati. “Improving Efficiency in Indonesia’s Tax Objection Process: Reducing Bureaucracy and Enhancing Access to the Tax Court.” Law Development Journal 7, no. 1 (2025). https://doi.org/10.30659/ldj.7.1.97-109.
Nurul Hidayati. “Analisis Hukum Atas Mekanisme Gugatan Dalam Sistem Perpajakan Di Indonesia.” Jurnal Hukum Dan Pembangunan Ekonomi 10, no. 2 (2022).
Peter Mahmud Marzuki. Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Kencana, 2016.
Philipus M. Hadjon. Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Rakyat Indonesia. Surabaya: Bina Ilmu, 1987.
Prabowo, Romadhani Setio, Hedwig Adianto Mau, and Rotua Valentina Sagala. “Kewenangan Pengadilan Pajak Dalam Memutus Sengketa Gugatan Di Bidang Kepabeanan.” Journal of Innovation Research and Knowledge 4, no. 10 (2025). https://doi.org/10.53625/jirk.v4i10.9860.
Purwan, Aditya Subur, Mirza Chaidir Rachman, Yonathan Agung Pahlevi, and Muhammad Anshar Syamsuddin. “Probability Putusan Sengketa Banding Di Bidang Kepabeanan.” Jurnal Perspektif Bea Dan Cukai 8, no. 1 (2024). https://doi.org/10.31092/jpbc.v8i1.2798.
Putri, Salsabella Vanisa, Anggita Yuniar, Devita Putri, and Grace Oktavia. “Mengenal Penyelesaian Non-Litigasi Sebagai Penyelesaian Alternatif Sengketa Pajak.” Jurnal Hukum Progresif 7, no. 12 (2024). https://oaj.jurnalhst.com/index.php/jhp/article/view/6370.
Sari, Ema Ratna, and Ardiansyah. “Penerapan Asas Itikad Baik Oleh Pihak Pemohon Dalam Sengketa Kepabeanan Atas Penetapan Nilai Pabean Di Pengadilan Pajak,.” IBLAM Law Review 4, no. 3 (2024). https://doi.org/10.52249/ilr.v4i3.523.
Sari, Mustika Mega, Susilo Hariyoko, and Lukman Jamal. “Analisis Putusan Pengadilan Pajak Nomor PUT-75158/PP/M.XVIIA/19/2016 Mengenai Keberatan Tarif Bea Masuk Impor.” PERSPEKTIF : Kajian Masalah Hukum Dan Pembangunan 27, no. 3 (2022). https://doi.org/10.30742/perspektif.v27i3.829.
Soekanto, Soerjono, and Sri Mamudji. Penelitian Hukum Normatif: Suatu Tinjauan Singkat. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada, 2010.
Sutrsino, Anom, and Gunung Jati. “Peran Hakim Dalam Mewujudkan Due Process of Law Pada Sistem Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara Di Indonesia.” Locus: Jurnal Konsep Ilmu Hukum 5, no. 1 (March 28, 2025): 17–28. https://doi.org/10.56128/JKIH.V5I1.434.
Tama, Naufalian Satya Huda, and Bagus Sarnawa. “Bagaimana Pergeseran Hukum Perpajakan Dalam Kaitanya Menghadapi Sengketa Pajak: Analisis Amandemen UU No.7 Tahun 2021.” Syntax Literate ; Jurnal Ilmiah Indonesia 7, no. 10 (2022): 17542–50. https://doi.org/10.36418/syntax-literate.v7i10.13133.
Tampubolon, Jeklira. “Kekosongan Upaya Hukum Gugatan Dalam Peraturan Perundang-Undangan Di Bidang Kepabeanan Telah Membatasi Hak Importir/Eskportir Dalam Mendapatkan Keadilan Dan Kepastian Hukum.” Syntax Idea 6, no. 7 (2024). https://doi.org/10.46799/syntax-idea.v6i7.4099.
Ulum, B. “Pengujian Kewenangan Administratif Dan Upaya Hukum Dalam Sengketa Kepabeanan.” Lex S: Jurnal Hukum 3, no. 2 (2022). https://doi.org/10.28946/lexl.v4i1.1823.
Utrecht, E. Pengantar Hukum Administrasi Negara Indonesia. Jakarta: Sinar Harapan, 1989.
Wijk, H.D. van, Willem Konijnenbelt, and R.J.N. Schuurmans. Hoofdstukken van Bestuursrecht. Deventer: Kluwer, 2011.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
Citation Check
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Doni Budiono
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
