Three proceedings · А53-33723/2019 · А53-43175/2019 · А53-16456/2022
Stopping the transit cargo, ordering its destruction and recovering money were not one dispute. The entrepreneur successively proved unlawful conduct by different authorities and then the amount of each component of actual loss and lost profit.The history consists of three cases, each addressing a different legal issue. Case А53-33723/2019 concerned customs actions in detaining transit goods and refusing permission for their departure. Case А53-43175/2019 challenged an order of the Rostov Region Veterinary Department prohibiting use of the products and requiring disposal or destruction. Only after those rulings became final did the entrepreneur bring a separate damages claim, case А53-16456/2022.
The first-instance and appellate courts initially ruled against the entrepreneur. On 5 November 2020, the Commercial Court of the North Caucasus Circuit set those rulings aside and issued a new judicial act. Later rulings described the conclusion this way: there was no prohibition on re-export through the Donetsk border checkpoint, and customs' failure to permit departure, seizure and detention of the goods did not meet requirements of legal certainty or a fair balance between private and public interests.
In case А53-43175/2019, the entrepreneur challenged the veterinary authority's order of 4 September 2019. After the initial dismissals were set aside and the matter was reconsidered, the court declared the order invalid on 2 August 2021. The appeal and cassation courts upheld that judgment, and on 14 March 2022 the Supreme Court declined to refer the cassation appeal for review.
Practical point
Winning on unlawfulness does not by itself prove the amount. Each expense, item of lost income and defendant requires its own documentary chain.
based on three related cases
The courts noted there was no evidence that the veterinary or quality certificates were invalid, or that the products were defective or posed an immediate threat. This mattered to causation because the destruction order was the basis on which the goods were lost.
In case А53-16456/2022, claims were brought separately against the federal Treasury represented by the FCS and against the Rostov Region represented by the veterinary authority. The appellate court awarded RUB 1,254,520.58 against the Russian Federation represented by the FCS and RUB 4,047,611.32 against the Rostov Region. The cassation court remitted the lost-profit claim for reconsideration.
How the total was built
How the court divided the awardsThe graphic keeps damages separate from the state fee and shows the different public defendants.Russian Federation represented by the FCS
Rostov Region
Rostov Region
On reconsideration, the court awarded a further RUB 3,244,416.93 in lost profit from the Rostov Region Treasury. That ruling was upheld on 29 May 2024. The awarded components totalled RUB 8,546,548.83, without combining the state fee with the damages themselves.
The court relied on a specialist's market-value opinion, the supply contract, invoices, extracts from the tax-invoice register and the calculation. These documents showed a commercial sales model and sale price, not an abstract intention to sell. The defendant produced no evidence that the calculation was unreliable and did not establish that veterinary grounds made the goods unsaleable.
Winning a challenge to an unlawful act creates a basis for the next step, but does not determine the amount automatically. Actual loss requires payment and goods documents; transport and storage costs require contracts, invoices and a link to the detention; lost profit requires evidence of a sales market, prepared transactions and a calculation that withstands scrutiny.
Court rulings
This review concerns the named court ruling. Any other dispute requires a separate check of the document, date, evidence and procedural stage.Original court document linked; this page provides an English explanation, not a certified translation.