SENT – The Issue of Shipment Splitting
- Introduction
The Road and Rail Transport Monitoring System (SENT), regulated by the Act of 9 March 2017, is an instrument designed to prevent tax abuses, particularly in the area of VAT and excise duty. Recently, its scope has been extended to include selected categories of goods, including footwear and clothing, which has significantly affected the operational practice of logistics and trading entities. One of the key interpretative issues remains the understanding of the term “shipment.”
- Shipment
The starting point for these considerations is the definition of a shipment contained in Article 3(3) of the SENT Act. In legal doctrine and case law, it is emphasized that this definition is autonomous and applies to the entire SENT regulation, even though it is not formally included in the general definitions section of the Act.
According to this definition, a shipment is a specified quantity of goods of the same type, transported from one sender to one recipient, to one place of delivery, using one means of transport.
This definition is functional and comprehensive, covering not only the physical packaging (e.g., a cardboard box)—as understood in everyday language where “shipment” is synonymous with a parcel—but the entire load transported within a given transport operation that meets the above criteria.
Therefore, classification as a “shipment” depends on the economic relationship (the reason for the movement of goods – trade flow) and the organizational logistics structure. In this context, the use of colloquial language must be excluded when interpreting SENT, as the packaging method of goods does not affect whether the legal definition is met.
The Regulation of the Minister of Finance and Economy of 10 September 2025 expanded the list of goods covered by SENT, including footwear (CN 64) and clothing. At the same time, an quantitative threshold was introduced— for footwear, notification is required above 20 units.
Given this relatively low threshold, the question increasingly arises: is it permissible to split a shipment into smaller parts to avoid the notification requirement?
- Permissibility of Shipment Splitting
An analysis of the regulations, particularly in light of their functional interpretation, leads to the conclusion that such actions are generally not permissible, especially when they are clearly artificial.
The legislator does not intend for goods transported by one means of transport, from the same sender to the same recipient and delivery location, to be treated as separate shipments—even if they are divided into separate packages. Such practices constitute an attempt to circumvent the law and are contrary to the purpose of the SENT regulation, which is safeguarded by the strict definition of “shipment” in Article 3(3) of the SENT Act.
Doubts that have arisen in practice focus on the requirement that an invoice accompanies the shipment, which—according to implementing regulations—determines whether transport may be exempt from notification obligations.
In practice, it is sometimes assumed that an artificial division of a commercial transaction, consisting of issuing separate sales documents (e.g., multiple invoices for parts of a single delivery), automatically results in the creation of multiple separate shipments. This would, in turn, allow the application of quantitative thresholds separately to each of them, potentially eliminating the obligation to register the transport in the system.
Unfortunately, this assumption does not withstand scrutiny against the definition of a shipment discussed above.
This means that the existence of one or multiple shipments depends on the actual course of transport (one vehicle, one sender, one recipient, one delivery location), not on the number of legal transactions or accounting documents accompanying the transport.
The VAT invoice plays a secondary role—it may be relevant for applying certain exemptions, but it does not shape the structure of the shipment itself.
Consequently, splitting a commercial operation by issuing multiple invoices for a single economically and logistically coherent delivery does not result in the division of a shipment under the SENT Act.
If the goods are still transported by one means of transport, from one sender to one recipient and one delivery location, there is a single shipment, regardless of the number of invoices. In such a case, the “invoice accompanying the shipment” requirement must be assessed in relation to the entire shipment, not artificially separated parts.
This does not mean, however, that any division is excluded. The permissibility of such actions must be assessed through the lens of the actual organization of transport. It is therefore possible to structure logistics operations in a way that results in multiple separate shipments under the Act, provided that the conditions for their separateness are met.
In particular, this applies to situations where transport is carried out using different means of transport, or where there are different recipients, senders, or delivery locations. In such cases, each operation may be classified as a separate shipment, which may potentially exempt it from notification obligations under the system.
Łukasz Strzelczyk
Legal Counsel at Trans Lawyers Law Firm
www.translawyers.eu
