Supreme Court · 307-ЭС19-12268
In August 2018, a consignment of Dutch-origin goods travelled through Russia to Ukraine. Pskov Customs required it to be returned to Latvia. Three courts supported customs, but the Supreme Court set their rulings aside and held the customs decision unlawful.In 2019, the Supreme Court's Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes reviewed a dispute over goods carried through Russia to Ukraine under customs transit in August 2018. Pskov Customs required the goods to be returned to Latvia and later rejected an appeal. Three courts upheld customs. The Supreme Court set those rulings aside, granted the entrepreneur's application and held the customs decision unlawful.
The operative part itself shows the ruling's limit: it decides one dispute under the rules and facts of 2018. It is not a formula allowing any restricted goods to transit freely. The Supreme Court tied its conclusion to transit to a third country, the absence of an intention to release the goods in Russia and the conditions then set out in paragraph 2 of Presidential Decree No. 391.
On 6 August 2018, a vehicle carrying Dutch-origin goods arrived at the Burachki international road checkpoint on the Russian-Latvian border. The consignee was in Ukraine. To place the goods under customs transit, the carrier submitted CMR dated 02.08.2018 No. NL2875276, invoice dated 02.08.2018 No. ВМ086 and a veterinary certificate. The documents described the goods as frozen side pork fat.
During inspection, customs described the goods as frozen pork fat, recording 20 packages and gross weight of 20,523 kg in inspection report dated 08.08.2018 No. 10209150/080818/001378. The difference in product wording appears in the ruling itself; the court did not state that the dispute was decided by independently re-evaluating that terminology.
Customs treated the goods as subject to Presidential Decree No. 560 of 06.08.2014 and Government Resolution No. 778 of 07.08.2014. The carrier received notice No. 915 of 09.08.2018 requiring return of the goods to Latvia. The entrepreneur's representative made an oral appeal, which customs rejected by act No. 07-48/100818/2 of 10.08.2018. That decision became the subject of the commercial-court application.
Chronology
From the border to the Supreme CourtThe dates show where the cargo story ended and judicial review began.Burachki border checkpoint
appeal rejected
applicant refused relief
customs decision held unlawful
The ruling allows the documentary outline to be reconstructed with confidence, but not the complete evidentiary record. It identifies the CMR, invoice, veterinary certificate, inspection report, return notice and appeal decision. The seven-page ruling does not disclose every attachment or the later fate of the goods.
The Commercial Court of the Pskov Region dismissed the entrepreneur's claim on 20.11.2018. The Fourteenth Commercial Court of Appeal upheld that judgment on 18.02.2019, and the Commercial Court of the North-Western Circuit upheld both lower-court rulings on 30.05.2019. The entrepreneur asked the Supreme Court to set aside all three and remit the case. On 27.09.2019, the cassation appeal and case were referred to the Supreme Court's Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes.
The lower courts took a broad view: the import prohibition on agricultural products, raw materials and food also applied to goods under customs transit. In their reasoning, if the goods fell within a prohibited category, the chosen customs procedure did not change the result. They therefore upheld customs' refusal of the appeal against returning the consignment.
That was the point of disagreement. The Supreme Court did not stop at whether the goods appeared on the list; it examined what the special measures in force at the time said about goods placed under transit and carried to third countries.
The Court read Presidential Decree No. 560, Government Resolution No. 778 and paragraph 2 of Presidential Decree No. 391 of 29.07.2015 in the version then in force together. Paragraph 2 provided that Decree No. 391 did not apply to goods under customs transit to third countries where accompanying veterinary and phytosanitary documents were authentic and matched the cargo, the authorities had sufficient grounds to expect delivery outside Russia, and the carriage complied with the customs-transit conditions.
For the disputed period, the Supreme Court concluded from that exception that goods meeting those conditions and moving in transit to a third country could lawfully be present in Russia; the special measures under Decree No. 560 did not prohibit that transit entry as such. This was a conclusion from a specific combination of rules and conditions, not a general contrast between ‘transit’ and ‘import.’
Rule applicable to the disputed period
The exception covered goods under transit to third countries where the conditions stated in the decree were met.
paragraph 2 of Presidential Decree No. 391; as summarized in the ruling, pp. 5–6
On the facts, the Judicial Chamber relied on circumstances already found by the lower courts and not disputed by the parties: the supply contract was between foreign persons; an overseas carrier performed the carriage; the goods moved under customs transit; and the purpose was onward import into Ukraine, not release for circulation in Russia. The Court therefore found the prohibitions under Decree No. 560 inapplicable to this consignment.
The ruling also mentions an amendment dated 24.06.2019, effective from 01.07.2019, which permitted certain road and rail transit where traceability, GLONASS-based identification devices and the prescribed procedure were used. The Supreme Court cited it as supporting its interpretation and removing ambiguity. The disputed carriage occurred in August 2018, so the amendment cannot be presented as the sole basis for the outcome or as today's transit rules.
The Supreme Court did not remit the case, although the applicant had requested that result. It set aside the Pskov Region Commercial Court judgment of 20.11.2018, the Fourteenth Commercial Court of Appeal judgment of 18.02.2019 and the North-Western Circuit Commercial Court judgment of 30.05.2019. The entrepreneur's application was granted, and the Pskov Customs decision recorded in act No. 07-48/100818/2 of 10.08.2018 was held unlawful.
A new situation cannot be compared merely by matching the goods or the word ‘transit.’ Check the date and applicable rules, route and third-country destination, declared procedure, CMR and commercial documents, veterinary or phytosanitary documents, their correspondence to the cargo, evidence of delivery outside Russia and the facts behind any customs doubt about the transit purpose. In case No. А52-3958/2018, the conclusion depended on the combination of the legal regime and undisputed circumstances.
The ruling does not say what happened to the consignment afterward, whether it was actually returned or allowed through, whether damages were claimed or compensation was paid. It also does not establish current transit rules. Those points require separate primary sources and cannot be inferred from the outcome of the challenge to the customs act.
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.