预审法官对海关总署执行的行政行为作出裁决的权力

Cepalo Pub Date : 2023-03-27 DOI:10.25041/cepalo.v7no1.2863
Erdianto Effendi, R. Yulia
{"title":"预审法官对海关总署执行的行政行为作出裁决的权力","authors":"Erdianto Effendi, R. Yulia","doi":"10.25041/cepalo.v7no1.2863","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Directorate General of Customs and Excise has administrative and law enforcement authority. In practice, judges often understand administrative authority as an investigative authority, thus granting pretrial requests for Acts that are the administrative authority. The method used is normative legal research is descriptive qualitative with qualitative analysis techniques using primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The results showed that pretrial judges differed in interpreting administrative authority. Only two of the five judges interpreted administrative authority as not pretrial objects. Supposedly, judges are not authorized to examine the administrative authority exercised by Customs and Excise. Recommendations This research is to minimize the expansion of interpretation of the authority of forced efforts so that the issuance of the Supreme Mahakamh Circular or revise the Customs and Excise Law.","PeriodicalId":52705,"journal":{"name":"Cepalo","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"PRETRIAL JUDGE AUTHORITY IN ADJUDICATING ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CUSTOMS\",\"authors\":\"Erdianto Effendi, R. Yulia\",\"doi\":\"10.25041/cepalo.v7no1.2863\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Directorate General of Customs and Excise has administrative and law enforcement authority. In practice, judges often understand administrative authority as an investigative authority, thus granting pretrial requests for Acts that are the administrative authority. The method used is normative legal research is descriptive qualitative with qualitative analysis techniques using primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The results showed that pretrial judges differed in interpreting administrative authority. Only two of the five judges interpreted administrative authority as not pretrial objects. Supposedly, judges are not authorized to examine the administrative authority exercised by Customs and Excise. Recommendations This research is to minimize the expansion of interpretation of the authority of forced efforts so that the issuance of the Supreme Mahakamh Circular or revise the Customs and Excise Law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52705,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cepalo\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cepalo\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25041/cepalo.v7no1.2863\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cepalo","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25041/cepalo.v7no1.2863","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

海关总署拥有行政和执法权力。在实践中,法官往往将行政权力理解为一种调查权力,因此准许对属于行政权力的行为提出审前请求。使用的方法是规范性法律研究是描述性定性与定性分析技术,使用第一,第二和第三法律材料。结果表明,审前法官对行政权限的解释存在差异。5名法官中只有2名将行政权力解释为非审前对象。据推测,法官无权审查海关行使的行政权力。本研究的建议是尽量减少扩大解释权力的强迫努力,以便颁布最高马哈姆通告或修订《海关法》。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
PRETRIAL JUDGE AUTHORITY IN ADJUDICATING ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CUSTOMS
The Directorate General of Customs and Excise has administrative and law enforcement authority. In practice, judges often understand administrative authority as an investigative authority, thus granting pretrial requests for Acts that are the administrative authority. The method used is normative legal research is descriptive qualitative with qualitative analysis techniques using primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The results showed that pretrial judges differed in interpreting administrative authority. Only two of the five judges interpreted administrative authority as not pretrial objects. Supposedly, judges are not authorized to examine the administrative authority exercised by Customs and Excise. Recommendations This research is to minimize the expansion of interpretation of the authority of forced efforts so that the issuance of the Supreme Mahakamh Circular or revise the Customs and Excise Law.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信