Import VAT cannot be equated with customs duties, despite a current regulatory definition that classifies it as a "border duty". This was established by the Constitutional Court, which, in ruling no. 93, filed on July 3, upheld - within the limits specified in the reasoning - the questions of legitimacy raised by the United Sections of the Court of Cassation regarding the sanctioning system laid out in Article 70 of Presidential Decree 633/1972, in relation to Articles 282 and 301 of Presidential Decree 43/1973. According to constitutional judges, import VAT, while collected when goods enter the national area, is fundamentally different from duties. In fact, value added tax is based on the principle of fiscal neutrality in relation to economic activities, which ensures that the taxable individual has the right to deduct the VAT they have paid. Duties, on the other hand, are instruments that respond to protectionist logics or the funding of the European Union's internal resources. The Court also voiced its judgment on the penalty system for VAT evasion on imports, describing it as disproportionate in comparison to other comparable situations. In fact, the current legislation also mandates the confiscation of the commodities that are the subject of the offense, in addition to a pecuniary sanction of two to ten times the amount evaded. This treatment is more severe than that of internal VAT and even customs duties, as the Union Customs Code (art. 124, par. 1, letter e) allows for the extinction of the obligation when the products are confiscated. As per the Court, this accumulation of sanctions is in violation of the principle of proportionality, which is acknowledged by both constitutional jurisprudence (judgment no. 46/2023) and European law on harmonised taxes. According to the ruling, the disproportion is also visible in the context of the recent legislative decree no. 87/2024, which revised the tax penalty system with the explicit objective of achieving a balance between the severity of the penalty and the severity of the violation. However, the Constitutional Court has elected not to entirely eradicate the confiscation of the asset, as it would be impossible to effectively safeguard the Treasury's interest in certain instances through alternative mechanisms, such as precautionary seizure. This is especially true when it comes to assets that cannot be divided or whose worth exceeds the evaded amount, and when seizure can only cover the profit—that is, the evaded VAT—but not the monetary penalty. To ensure that the measure adheres to constitutional principles, the Court added a "safety clause": the asset will not be confiscated if the required party pays in full the evaded VAT, accessories, and pecuniary penalties. A form of reductio ad legitimitatem that focuses attention on the taxpayer's actions, emphasizing voluntary disclosure and the desire to spontaneously regularize one's status.