Customs relief and tariff preferences

The appropriate route depends on the document, legal basis of the dispute, amount at risk, procedural stage and available evidence. An administrative appeal may be relevant where the dispute concerns procedure, a calculation, the document set or an error that may be addressed within the customs system. Court proceedings may need consideration where the disagreement concerns substantive issues such as valuation method, tariff classification, origin or price evidence. Before choosing a route, check the receipt date, applicable appeal procedure, evidence and possible effect on current and future shipments. Administrative and court submissions should be prepared as parts of a consistent position.

Yes. But a deadline should not be calculated from memory or from the general label attached to the problem. Start with the actual document: request, inspection report, decision, demand, administrative-offence decision or decision on an appeal. Record the actual receipt date, who received it, the applicable procedure and any steps already taken. Then build a calendar for the specific response, objections, appeal, court filing, refund application or challenge required. In practice, preserve the envelope, delivery notice, online-account record or other evidence of delivery and check the time limit for that specific procedure. An incorrect receipt date or appeal route can materially affect the case.

Do not give substantive explanations before analysing the legal characterisation, elements of the alleged offence and evidence. The right to give explanations under Article 25.1 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offences is a procedural right. The source text states that there is no duty to give explanations and cautions against using that right without preparation. The source then recommends that, within the first 24 hours after receiving an order commencing proceedings, the company first read the order and offence report carefully: identify the article and part alleged, the event characterised as an offence and the evidence already collected; locate Article 28.2 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offences and check compliance with the statutory requirements for the offence report; record the date of service and calculate the limitation period (Article 4.5 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offences — for customs-law violations, the limitation period under Article 4.5(1) of the Russian Code of Administrative Offences is generally two years from commission, subject to the statutory rules for calculating the period, including continuing offences); collect all documents for the episode (declaration, contract, invoice and transport records) and internal correspondence; do not sign new explanations or protocols before obtaining legal advice. If you are summoned to give explanations, you may attend with defence counsel (Article 25.5 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offences), the person may rely on Article 51 of the Russian Constitution and refuse to give evidence against themselves or close relatives, give written explanations and obtain a copy. The first stage of the defence is to understand the case file before committing to a factual account. Explanations given immediately after the event can contain wording that is difficult to reconcile later.

Yes. A statement recorded in an explanation can affect the company's position before it has fully understood the allegation. Wording such as 'we did not check the supplier's documents' may be relied on when assessing negligence (Article 2.2 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offences); saying 'the customs representative chose the code' does not, by itself, resolve the declarant's responsibility for the accuracy of declared information (Article 84 of the EAEU Customs Code); statements such as 'we trusted the supplier', 'perhaps we made a mistake' or 'we have many shipments and I do not remember the details' may narrow the factual position later. Before giving explanations, check the legal characterisation of the alleged offence, the limitation period, procedural defects and the evidence, including the principles in Article 1.5 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offences (presumption of innocence) and Article 2.1 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offences (liability of a legal entity). Where the defence position is not ready, the source recommends considering the procedural right not to give explanations rather than making unreviewed statements. It also states that under Article 25.1 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offences a refusal to give explanations does not by itself amount to an admission of guilt.