А32-42520/2016
An entrepreneur challenged a customs authority decision of 19.09.2016 adjusting the customs value. The first-instance court found the adjustment unlawful, and the Fifteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal left that decision unchanged. The judicial act confirms that security of RUB 312,686.32 was paid, but does not confirm that this amount was actually refunded; any subsequent cassation proceedings have also not been verified in the available materials.Case details and subject of the dispute
Case № А32-42520/2016 concerned an application by an entrepreneur against a customs authority. The challenged act was the customs value adjustment decision of 19.09.2016. The appellate decision establishes that the imported goods originated in Turkey.
During the additional verification, the customs authority calculated security for customs duties and taxes in the amount of RUB 312,686.32. The entrepreneur paid the cash security, after which the goods were released for domestic consumption. The judicial act describes this amount specifically as security; the decision contains no information establishing that it was subsequently refunded.
Documents assessed by the court
The transaction value was supported by a foreign trade contract, pro forma invoice and invoice, export declaration, packing list, manufacturer's price list, sea freight documents, payment documents, a commercial offer, a specification and explanations concerning pricing. The banking documents confirmed payment of USD 18,583.8, while the export declaration data corresponded with the declared price.
The appellate court stated that the documents submitted were sufficient to apply the transaction value method for imported goods. The court also noted the absence of contradictions and indications of unreliability in the information submitted. This was a finding based on the evidence in this particular case, not a universal list of documents required for every current customs valuation dispute.
Two pricing sources at two different stages
The case involved two different pricing sources used at different stages. For calculating the security, the customs authority relied on information concerning goods of Italian origin. For the subsequent customs value adjustment under the fallback method, it used information concerning goods of Chinese origin. The Italian source therefore related to the security stage, while the Chinese source was used to support the fallback customs value adjustment.
| Stage | Country of origin of the comparison goods |
|---|---|
| Security calculation | Italy |
| Fallback customs value adjustment | China |
Why the court rejected the basis for the adjustment
The dispute was considered within the historical legal framework of the Customs Code of the Customs Union and the Agreement of 25.01.2008 on the determination of customs value. The court also referred to Customs Union Commission Decision № 376 and Resolution № 18 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 12.05.2016. Article 39 of the EAEU Customs Code was not applied in this judicial act.
The court established that the goods in the two pricing sources used by the customs authority originated respectively in Italy and China, whereas the entrepreneur's goods originated in Turkey. Applying Article 3 of the Agreement then in force, the appellate court stated that those goods could not be treated as identical or homogeneous for the comparison used. This finding concerns the specific sources and historical rules in this case and does not establish a general present-day prohibition on all price comparisons involving goods of different origin.
Outcome of the appeal and its limits
By its decision of 13.04.2017, the Arbitration Court of the Krasnodar Territory found the customs value adjustment of 19.09.2016 unlawful and ordered the customs authority to remedy the violation of the entrepreneur's rights. The customs authority appealed. The Fifteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal found no grounds to overturn the decision, left it unchanged and dismissed the appeal.
The appellate decision confirms that the applicant's representative participated in the appeal. The representative asked the court to leave the first-instance decision unchanged. The judicial act does not establish the scope of any other work in the case and does not support a statement that this representative participated at first instance.
The Arbitration Court of the Krasnodar Territory found the customs value adjustment unlawful and ordered the customs authority to remedy the violation of the entrepreneur's rights.
The operative part of the Fifteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal decision was announced.
The full text of appellate decision № 15АП-5952/2017 was issued; the first-instance decision was left unchanged.
Court rulings
This case analysis is based on the official text of the decision of the Fifteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated 12.05.2017, № 15АП-5952/2017, in case № А32-42520/2016. The date and outcome of the first-instance decision are established from that appellate decision. The separate first-instance decision and the actual refund of funds have not been verified.If you have a document relating to a customs dispute, you can get in touch. State the type of document, the date you received it and briefly describe the situation.