VID: EU Belarus vehicle ban spares temporary personal trips

The Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (VID) has held, in decision No. P005-17/27.1/8193 of 11 November 2026, that the Union's Belarus sanctions do not block a temporary personal car trip to Belarus and back where the vehicle keeps its owner and its European Union registrationVID. The applicant, a Belarusian citizen living and working legally in Lithuania with an EU Blue Card, owns a Lithuania-registered car bought with his own funds and without credit, and is weighing a personal New Year trip from Lithuania to Belarus via Latvia, returning with the same car. The car would move under its own power, stay in his ownership and use and keep Lithuanian registration, with nothing sold, handed over, re-registered or left in Belarus. Lithuanian customs at Medininkai had refused exit on 15 October 2026 under Article 1.bb(1) and Annex XVIII of Council Regulation (EK) No 765/2006; for the legal assessment only, VID was asked to assume the car meets the Annex XVIII description.

Article 1.bb(1) bans the direct or indirect sale, supply, transfer or export, to or for use in Belarus, of Annex XVIII goods that could enhance Belarusian industrial capacityVID; Annex XVIII includes code ex 8703 80VID, vehicles principally for fewer than 10 persons with solely an electric motor and clearance of 165 mm or moreVID. Article 1.ra(1) bans the direct or indirect purchase, import or transfer in the Union of Annex XXVII goods enabling Belarus to diversify revenue sources, where they originate in Belarus or are exported from thereVID; Annex XXVII includes code 8703, vehicles principally for fewer than 10 personsVID. The Regulation defines neither “eksportēt” nor “importēt”, and nothing in it suggests a narrow customs-procedure reading, so VID applies the general meanings of taking goods out of, and bringing goods into, a country.

Neither ban catches the trip described.VID Where such a vehicle — one registered in any Member State — is used as a means of transport and only temporarily taken out, the prohibitions do not affect the temporary personal trip outward with ownership retained and return to the Union, nor the temporary return legVID. Crossing the Latvian–Belarusian border either way in an EU-registered vehicle requires no additional documents proving the intention to re-import it after a short stayVID. Lithuanian rather than Latvian registration changes nothingVID, since the reasoning turns on registration in any Member StateVID.

On the status of its answers VID split the file. It refused an uzziņa on the question about the answers' legal effects and reliance for repeat trips, which asks for an explanation of an uzziņa's effects rather than guidance on planned conduct, answering it under the general Submissions Law procedure instead: an uzziņa does not bind its addresseeVID, but a later authority act on that question may not be less favourable to one who acted in line with itVID. This uzziņa is not contestable at a higher authority nor appealable in courtVID; the refusal itself may be appealed to the court within one month of notificationVID at the Administrative District CourtVID. VID also refused the requested short English summary, since Latvian is the State language and the Administrative Procedure Law provides no translation of an uzziņa.

Legal basis: Council Regulation (EK) No 765/2006, Article 1.bb(1) and Annex XVIII (CN ex 8703 80) and Article 1.ra(1) and Annex XXVII (CN 8703); Administratīvā procesa likums, 98., 100. and 101. pants; Valsts ieņēmumu dienesta likums, 3. pants, 4. panta 3. punkts and 14. panta 1. daļa; Iesniegumu likums; Valsts valodas likums, 3. panta 1. daļa.