Brazilian Supreme Court Ruling 323 was issued in a plenary session in 1963. It states that... “"The seizure of goods as a coercive means to collect taxes is unacceptable.".
 
Regarding the application of the aforementioned summary judgment, the courts understood that the requirement of a guarantee for the release of goods was unconstitutional, since this requirement was interpreted as a coercive means of forcing the taxpayer to pay the amount.
 
Given the legal and economic relevance of the topic, RE 1.090.591 was submitted to the general repercussion regime. In the judgment, the Supreme Federal Court overturned its previous understanding, now considering that... “"It is constitutional to link customs clearance to the collection of tax differences determined through arbitration by the tax authority."”, drastically changing what was edited in summary 323.
 
Because it concerns a matter of general repercussion, the understanding derived from the judgment of Topic 1,042 must be applied in identical cases by lower courts.
 
It turns out that, although the case in RE 1.090.591/SC deals with under-invoicing, other factors contributed directly to the Supreme Court's understanding being overturned.
 
Therefore, it is up to the judge to pay close attention to all the details before making a decision. The Code of Civil Procedure is clear in requiring that decisions be properly reasoned.
 
Article 489 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that:
 
Art. 489. The essential elements of a sentence are:
(…)
§ 1 Any judicial decision, whether interlocutory, a judgment, or a ruling, is not considered to be well-founded if it:
(…)
V – to merely invoke a precedent or summary statement without identifying its determining grounds or demonstrating that the case under judgment fits those grounds;
 
It turns out that, currently, the courts have been applying the Supreme Court's understanding in a generic way, without providing justification or demonstrating that the case under judgment perfectly fits the precedent.
 
Finally, given the complexity of the subject, the need for a legal team to analyze each detail and distinction of your specific case is highlighted.

Article by Pedro Guzenski, Lawyer, graduated in Law in 2019 by the Catholic University of Santos/SP, OAB/SP No. 445,637