According to Articles 21 and 44 of the Law on Combating the Smuggling of Goods and Currency, the legislature has vested jurisdiction over these offenses in the Revolutionary Court, the Government Penalty Branches, or the relevant Discoverer organizations. Ambiguities within the law, particularly in the definition of "smuggling of goods and currency" under Article 1(a) and the varied usage of the term "smuggling," have made the determination of the competent authority a subject of numerous unifying precedents issued by the General Board of the Supreme Court. Employing a descriptive-analytical method, this article examines the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Law and the precedents set by the General Board of the Supreme Court, analyzing their reciprocal influence. The existence of conflicting precedents, alongside the intended criminal policy of the legislature, prompted an attempt to resolve these ambiguities through the 2021 amendment stipulated in Note 5 of Article 63. However, the General Board of the Supreme Court, in its Unifying Precedent No. 839, once again recognized the Criminal Court Two as the competent authority for the offense of possessing alcoholic beverages for personal use. This ruling not only conflicts with previous precedents set by the General Board but also contravenes the provisions of Articles 44, 50 bis 2, and Note 5 of Article 63 of the Law. Consequently, while this precedent is binding under Article 471 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, its ruling should be construed strictly and not extended to other cases.