论行政事前答复

在应对“法律不确定性”尤其是“行政立法的不确定性”问题上，除了传统的规范主义路径之外，行政事前答复作为一种新型手段开始在部门行政法中被广泛应用，在比较法上还形成了鲜明的制度性布置，并逐渐为我国行政机关所青睐。通过细致的比较可以确定，行政事前答复不可被归属于传统行政行为体系中的任何一种类型，而应与比较法上的处理一致，被定位为一种新型具体行政行为。在效力内容上，行政事前答复仅有约束行政两造的拘束力，不可及于第三人，不可作为先例或判例引用。在我国，行政事前答复已经籍由海关行政裁定和税收事先裁定获致初步尝试，但两者的制度化程度不一，海关行政裁定的立法体系已经初具规模，但税收事先裁定仍然有待获得立法者的认可。因此，在总论层面，行政事前答复还需要在将来的行政程序法中被加以规范。
In dealing with the“uncertainty of law”, especially“uncertainty of administrative legislation”, in addition to the traditional prescriptivism path, administrative advance reply as a new way starts to be widely applied in the department of administrative law, even has formed a distinctive system in comparative law, and been preferred gradually by administrative organs in our country. Through careful comparison, it can be determined that administrative advance reply can not belong to any type of traditional administrative action system, but a new type of specific administrative action like the disposal in comparative law. In terms of effectiveness, administrative advance reply only has the binding force on administrative parties, which has no influence on the third party and can not be cited as a legal precedent. In China, the administrative advance reply has been made a preliminary attempt in customs administrative ruling and tax advance ruling, but the institutionalized degree of these two rulings is inconsistent. The legislative system of customs administrative ruling has began to take shape, but tax advance ruling still remains to be recognized by legislators. Therefore, in the aspect of pandect, administrative advance reply needs to be normalized in administrative procedural law in the future.