On April 24, 2026, Bill No. 15194, “On Amendments to the Customs Code of Ukraine Regarding the Importation of Vehicles into Ukraine Without Payment of Customs Duties for Active-Duty Military Personnel,” was registered with the Verkhovna Rada. At first glance, this is one of those initiatives that is hard to argue with in principle: the military needs transportation, and the state should establish simpler and fairer rules for its acquisition.

The idea behind the bill is clear. An active-duty military personnel who was mobilized after February 24, 2022, or is serving under a contract should be granted the right to import one vehicle into Ukraine under preferential terms. The bill covers passenger cars, car bodies, trailers and semi-trailers, motorcycles, as well as vehicles for transporting cargo, with the exception of those subject to the transportation tax.

The social rationale here is clear. In 2022, when Ukraine had a so-called “zero customs clearance” policy in effect, a significant portion of military personnel simply could not take advantage of this opportunity because they were on the front lines. At the same time, for military personnel in particular, a vehicle is often not a luxury but a tool for carrying out missions, evacuations, logistics, communications, and saving lives. Therefore, the attempt to restore this opportunity specifically for active-duty service members does not appear to be a “one-size-fits-all” benefit, but rather targeted compensation for an obvious inequality.

The strength of the bill lies in its personalized approach. The right to duty-free importation is proposed to be granted not to an abstract group of importers, but to specific citizens with special status. The bill also provides for restrictions: one vehicle per service member, the option for an officially authorized person to import on behalf of the relevant citizen, and a prohibition on applying the exemption to goods originating from an occupying state or an aggressor state, as well as to goods imported from occupied territories.

However, it is precisely in the details that the main legal risk lies. The title of the bill refers to the import of vehicles without paying customs duties. The explanatory note also formulates the objective more broadly—as importation without payment of value-added tax, excise tax, and import duties. But the actual text of the proposed amendment to the Customs Code effectively establishes an exemption specifically from import duties.

To the average reader, this may seem like a technical distinction, but for the customs clearance of a vehicle, it is fundamental. The financial burden associated with importing a vehicle consists of more than just import duties. If the exemption is introduced only in the Customs Code, without proper coordination with the Tax Code, a servicemember may face a situation where the political phrasing “without payment of customs duties” does not match the actual amount of payments at customs.

It is important to note that, in parallel with the customs bill, tax bill No. 15195 has also been registered, concerning the import of vehicles without paying customs duties for active-duty military personnel. Therefore, this framework can only function if both bills are adopted and harmonized simultaneously. If one law amends the Customs Code and the other amends the Tax Code, they must form a single mechanism, rather than two separate declarations with different legal consequences.

There is also another issue related to legislative drafting. The explanatory note mentions, among other safeguards, a prohibition on the alienation, transfer, or use of a vehicle by third parties for three years from the date of state registration. However, the text of the proposed bill amending the Customs Code does not explicitly detail such a prohibition. This is crucial for law enforcement: a restriction on property rights cannot exist solely in an explanatory note. It must be explicitly, clearly, and predictably enshrined in the text of the law.

Without such a safeguard, the exemption could be subject to abuse. Formally, a vehicle would be imported “for a military servicemember,” but in practice, it could be used as a means to reduce the cost of commercial imports or for subsequent resale. Conversely, if the prohibition is worded too strictly, it could create problems for the actual military use of the vehicle within a unit, where the vehicle is effectively used for combat missions but is driven by other military personnel.

That is precisely why the law must clearly address practical questions. What document confirms the status of an active-duty service member? Who verifies—and how—that a person was mobilized after February 24, 2022, or is serving under a contract? Can a relative or volunteer import the vehicle under a power of attorney if the service member is in a combat zone? What happens if the service member is discharged from service after the vehicle is imported? Is it permitted to transfer the vehicle to a military unit or subunit without losing the benefit?

The answers to these questions cannot be left solely to future administrative practice. If the mechanism is unclear, customs officials will apply it cautiously, the military will view it with suspicion, and unscrupulous intermediaries will exploit it for their own maximum gain. As a result, a sound idea could turn into either yet another bureaucratic procedure or a scheme that will later have to be curtailed after the fact.

The positive aspect of the bill is that it acknowledges the reality of war: the state cannot always quickly provide every unit with the necessary transportation, and the military and volunteers often meet this need on their own. The risk, however, is that without a sound legal framework, “zero customs clearance for the military” may remain nothing more than a catchy slogan that fails to deliver the expected practical results.

Therefore, Bill No. 15194 should be supported in principle but refined in substance. The final version must clearly define: who is eligible for the exemption, what types of vehicles it covers, which specific fees it waives, what documents must be submitted, who may act on behalf of a service member, what restrictions apply after importation, and what constitutes a violation of the exemption’s terms.

For a service member, what matters is not the political title of the bill, but a concrete answer to a simple question: how much will they pay when importing a vehicle, and will that vehicle later become a source of legal problems? If Parliament provides a clear answer to this, the bill could become a truly useful support tool. If not, a good idea risks getting bogged down in customs interpretations, tax exceptions, and practical uncertainty.