A 3\u00aa Turma da C\u00e2mara Superior declarou a nulidade de auto de infra\u00e7\u00e3o contra a Petro Rio Jaguar Petr\u00f3leo S.A. por entender que a fiscaliza\u00e7\u00e3o n\u00e3o seguiu o procedimento adequado para questionar o regime aduaneiro j\u00e1 concedido \u00e0 empresa. O caso envolve cerca de R$ 18 bilh\u00f5es em valores atualizados e trata de supostas irregularidades relacionadas ao Repetro-Sped.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The majority of the panel followed the vote of the rapporteur, council member Tatiana Belis\u00e1rio. According to her, the tax authorities presented arguments related to the requirements for granting the regime, but formalized the charge as resulting from non-compliance with the conditions of use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Belis\u00e1rio argued that if the intention was to revoke the Repetro-Sped concession, it would be necessary to follow the procedure for reviewing or revoking the concession act, and not simply issue a notice to collect the suspended taxes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A relatora tamb\u00e9m apontou que a falta de clareza comprometeu o direito de defesa da contribuinte, j\u00e1 que n\u00e3o era poss\u00edvel identificar com precis\u00e3o se a fiscaliza\u00e7\u00e3o pretendia revisar a concess\u00e3o do regime ou apurar irregularidades em sua utiliza\u00e7\u00e3o. O voto restabelece, nesse ponto, a conclus\u00e3o da Delegacia de Julgamento (DRJ) pela nulidade do lan\u00e7amento, com fundamento no artigo 59, inciso II, do Decreto 70.235\/1972 .<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The company's defense argued that the tax authorities initiated the procedure and directly issued the infraction notice, without prior notification to correct or clarify alleged errors or to present the administrative appeal provided for in the regulations of the regime at the time of the events.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cA C\u00e2mara Superior reconheceu que exigir R$ 17 bilh\u00f5es sem esclarecer sequer o que se pretendia (rever a concess\u00e3o ou apurar descumprimento) cerceia a defesa do contribuinte e torna nulo o lan\u00e7amento. O caso da PetroRio, portanto, al\u00e9m de um absurdo jur\u00eddico, \u00e9 emblem\u00e1tico, pois materializa o compromisso do Carf com a higidez das normas e procedimentos da Receita Federal\u201d, afirmou o advogado Eduardo Kiralyhegy, do NMK Advogados, ao JOTA .<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The expert on the case, tax lawyer Leonardo Branco, from Daniel, Diniz e Branco \u2013 Advocacia Tribut\u00e1ria e Aduaneira, classified the process as "quite peculiar" and highlighted that the tax authorities, when re-analyzing the Repetro requirements during the migration to Repetro-Sped, should have followed the review procedure foreseen in the legislation to cancel or disregard the special regime. Branco also stated that, a few weeks after the assessment was issued, the responsible auditor left the Federal Revenue Service.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the hearing, the Treasury, represented by attorney Fabr\u00edcio Sarmanho de Albuquerque, expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that the discussion regarding the nature of the defect had not been fully addressed, due to the lack of an "ancillary appeal" in the administrative process. Belis\u00e1rio agreed with the criticism and pointed out the need for adjustments to the regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Council member Vin\u00edcius Guimar\u00e3es was outvoted, having voted to deny the company's appeal on its merits. Previously, Guimar\u00e3es had voted against considering the appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n