{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.009749303621169917, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.550151975683891, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Some directions of improvement of ways of interpretation of procedural administrative-tort legal norms of the customs legislation

Having studied the peculiarities of interpretation of administrative-tort provisions of customs legislation establishing the procedure for proceedings on violations of customs rules, the author, in particular, expresses the opinion that in order to ensure the legality and validity of the decision to impose administrative penalties through the correct determination of the circumstances of the case and the applicable law as well as through the choice of a fair type and amount of administrative penalty – the customs legislation on the right to explain the alleged offense and comment on the case should be interpreted in a way that the person prosecuted should be given sufficient time and procedural opportunities to express their position on the legal substantiation of the allegation that they committed an offense and on the proposed penalty, as well as to provide evidence on the circumstances of the case. Also, the author substantiates that the model of termination of proceedings in customs rules violation case on the basis of a compromise, introduced in the customs legislation, needs to be radically improved, because it is built so that this tool of customs administration does not correspond to its nature and purpose since under the current customs law this model demands unconditional admission of guilt and imposition of possible type and amount of administrative penalty, which is unchangeable according to negotiated mutual concessions. Moreover, the motivation of offenders to conclude amicable agreements with customs authorities is limited to avoiding stricter penalties for repeated offenses, which is incompatible with the principle of inevitability of liability and may devalue the progressive increase in penalties. In addition, the author proposes ways to expand the interpretation of customs law on the temporary seizure of goods, vehicles and documents to maximize the protection of property rights of enterprises, which in light of the circumstances may be unreasonable and disproportionate.