I represent declarants at every stage of proceedings in Russian commercial courts: from pre-litigation preparation and preservation of evidence through a final court decision, cassation and the Russian Supreme Court.
By the first hearing, the position should be complete: contract, payments, export declaration and chamber of commerce opinion. Evidence not filed with the claim is almost never accepted on appeal.
Legal nature of the dispute
A challenge to a customs decision is heard by a Russian commercial court under Chapter 24 of the Russian Commercial Procedure Code as a challenge to a non-regulatory legal act. The court reviews the act against the two criteria expressly stated in Part 4 of Article 200 of the Russian Commercial Procedure Code: whether the challenged decision complies with the law and whether it infringes the declarant’s rights. The customs authority bears the burden of proving legality and the circumstances on which the act was based (Part 5 of Article 200 of the Russian Commercial Procedure Code), while the court assesses the evidence under Article 71 of the Russian Commercial Procedure Code — according to its own assessment of the evidence. The position taken by a regional customs directorate or the Federal Customs Service on an administrative appeal has no preclusive effect in court and does not relieve customs of its burden of proof; it may be challenged using the same documents customs previously rejected.
In a customs valuation dispute, a customs value adjustment is more likely to be set aside where the claim includes the full transaction record: contract, invoice, bank payment, export declaration from the country of dispatch and chamber of commerce opinion. Where amounts, dates and Incoterms terms are consistent, deviation from a customs value index alone is not sufficient, according to paragraph 15 of Resolution No. 49 of the Plenum of the Russian Supreme Court of 26 November 2019 and Articles 39–45 of the EAEU Customs Code the court requires a customs valuation analysis that explains why each preceding method was rejected.
In EAEU tariff-classification disputes, the outcome depends on the classification evidence. Marketing or commercial descriptions in an invoice or manufacturer’s catalogue are not, by themselves, determinative classification evidence: the court considers physical, chemical and functional characteristics, the manufacturer’s technical documents and, where necessary, a court-appointed expert examination. The declarant’s position is built sequentially under the General Rules for Interpretation (GRI 1–6) and the Explanatory Notes to the EAEU Commodity Nomenclature: which heading is selected, under which rule, and why that excludes customs’ proposed heading.
In cases concerning a post-release desk customs audit (Article 332 of the EAEU Customs Code), a decision may be set aside on procedural grounds without deciding the merits of the additional assessment. Such grounds may include going beyond the goods or periods covered by the audit, breaches of time limits or the procedure for drawing up the report, or failure to provide the declarant with the report and audit materials, depriving it of an opportunity to submit written objections. Where the court finds a material procedural breach, it may set the decision aside irrespective of the merits of the recalculation of customs value or tariff classification.
Procedural map
Collect the decision, goods declaration, contracts, invoices and correspondence on customs requests Article 325 of the EAEU Customs Code. Analyse the risk profile and method. If there is no basis for challenge, the case does not proceed to court.
Application under Chapter 24 of the Russian Commercial Procedure Code. State fee for an organisation: RUB 50,000 (Subparagraph 7 of paragraph 1 of Article 333.21 of the Russian Tax Code, as amended by Federal Law No. 259-FZ of 8 August 2024). Relief sought: declare the decision unlawful and require customs to refund the payments or restore the tariff code.
Suspension of the decision until the court ruling takes effect. The application is filed with the claim. The application itself is considered within a day. Time is spent preparing the loss calculation and counter-security.
Preliminary and main hearings; obtaining the customs file. Tariff-classification and origin cases may require a court-appointed expert examination (+2–4 months). Written submissions and expert rebuttal.
Appeal filed through the first-instance court; stated review period: 2 months. New evidence only where it could not have been submitted earlier (Part 2 of Article 268 of the Russian Commercial Procedure Code).
District cassation has its own filing period and reviews the case within the statutory limits of cassation, focusing on legal error rather than a fresh trial of the facts. Supreme Court review follows a separate screening and merits structure. The relevant issue is whether the case raises a legal error or inconsistency requiring higher-court review.
Deadlines
Types of disputes
Customs value adjustment: Method 1 vs Method 6, proof of the transaction, and challenging customs value index data from the central database by comparing delivery terms.
Tariff-classification dispute under GRI 1–6: Explanatory Notes to the EAEU Commodity Nomenclature, Central Customs Expert and Forensic Directorate opinions, and physical and chemical characteristics versus the invoice description.
Denial of preferences under CT-1, EUR.1 or Form A. Customs verification request and EEC Council Decision No. 60.
Desk and field audits during the three years after release (Article 332 of the EAEU Customs Code). Challenges to post-release control decisions with recovery of additionally assessed amounts.
Administrative appeal versus court proceedings. An administrative appeal does not by itself suspend enforcement. Under paragraph 31 of Russian Supreme Court Plenum Resolution No. 49 of 26 November 2019, the time spent on the administrative appeal is excluded from the court-filing period, including where the complaint is not examined on the merits; it does not create a fresh full filing period.
Article 67 of the EAEU Customs Code: the three-year period runs from the date of payment under the applicable refund rule; a later court decision does not by itself restart that period. The refund claim should be assessed and pleaded without assuming a new limitation period.
Interim measures and levels of review
Suspension of the challenged decision under Part 3 of Article 199 of the Russian Commercial Procedure Code — is a distinct form of interim relief. The applicant should show the concrete consequences of enforcement and why suspension is needed under the statutory test, rather than relying on a generic assertion of harm.
The applicant should substantiate the expected harm, the practical difficulty of reversing enforcement and the balance of interests. Financial records and, where relevant, counter-security may support the application. No fixed Treasury refund period should be assumed.
Counter-security may take the form permitted by the Russian Commercial Procedure Code, including a bank guarantee, court deposit or surety where appropriate. Whether it is required and whether a particular guarantee is adequate depend on the court, the relief requested and the current statutory requirements; no generic success rule or fixed six-month guarantee term should be stated.
Seeking suspension without calculating the loss. Providing a guarantee for less than the additional assessment. Failing to show that the applicant is an operating business through its balance sheet, employees or fixed assets. Providing security only after the first hearing.
Full examination of facts and evidence. The source characterises setting aside a customs value adjustment as a typical outcome where the case is properly prepared.
Review on the merits, subject to restrictions on new evidence (Part 2 of Article 268 of the Russian Commercial Procedure Code). Cassation review is governed by the limits and grounds applicable to that instance. Outcome percentages should not be stated without verified data.
Errors of law only, without reassessing the facts (Article 286 of the Russian Commercial Procedure Code). Arguments focus on breaches of the EAEU Customs Code, the Russian Commercial Procedure Code and Plenum resolutions.
Supreme Court review is a two-stage process: initial consideration by a judge and, if referred, review by the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes. A referral percentage should not be stated without verified data; the legal grounds for review must be assessed in the specific case.
We start with the document, date of receipt and amount at risk. Then we choose the format: message, Zoom or meeting.
Economics of the dispute
| State fee (organisation) | 50 000 ₽ |
| Expert examinations and studies | from RUB 40,000 |
| Legal services | from RUB 80,000 |
| Other litigation costs | as incurred |
| Estimated total | 170 000 ₽ + |
| Overpaid amounts | 100% |
| Interest under Article 36 of Federal Law No. 289-FZ | at the key rate |
| Litigation costs (Article 110 of the Russian Commercial Procedure Code) | within reasonable limits |
| Damages, if proven | additional |
| Economic effect | materially exceeds the costs |
Calculator
Base model: refund of overpaid amounts under Article 67 of the EAEU Customs Code + interest under Article 36 of Federal Law No. 289-FZ using an average key rate. Litigation costs under Article 110 of the Russian Commercial Procedure Code may be recoverable in addition to the amount shown.
Amounts exclude litigation costs and VAT where applicable.
Common questions
Initial contact
Describe what you received, the date, the amount at risk and what has already been submitted. The first practical step will be clear after review.
Materials on this issue