Successfully defended an equipment manufacturer in a dispute over the application of an increased customs duty rate
Successfully defended a manufacturer of equipment in a dispute over whether an increased customs duty rate should apply
The company imports components for the equipment to be manufactured. Owing to sanctions restrictions, the Polish manufacturer is unable to supply products directly to Russia, so the supplies were arranged through an intermediary in the Republic of Belarus.
Instead of the standard zero customs duty rate, the Southern Electronic Customs Office applied an increased rate of 30% of the customs value to the imported components. The ground for doing this was that the customs office deemed the origin of the goods not to have been confirmed: Belarus was indicated as the country of destination in the certificate of origin, while the consignee was the Belarusian intermediary rather than the Russian company.
When issuing the certificate, the competent Polish authority applied the same rules for determining the origin of goods approved by the Eurasian Economic Commission as would have applied if Russia had been indicated as the country of destination.
During the court proceedings, the customs authority insisted that the company should have declared the information contained in the certificate of origin obtained in Belarus and indicated that Belarus was the country of dispatch. The customs authority proposed postponing consideration of the case so that the company could make the relevant amendments to the customs declaration and subsequently withdrew its claims.
Pepeliaev Group’s lawyers demonstrated that this approach was contrary to the rules for completing customs declarations and would expose the company to the risk of subsequent adjustments, including by other customs authorities.
In this case, we successfully prevented an attempt to apply a formalistic approach to the certificate of origin and prevented the inclusion in the customs declaration of information that could have created additional customs risks for the company in the future.
Case No. A53-2203/2026.
Background
For more than 30 years, CJSC Kropotkinsky Zavod MISSP has been manufacturing and supplying production equipment for automated food and beverage filling and packaging lines.The company imports components for the equipment to be manufactured. Owing to sanctions restrictions, the Polish manufacturer is unable to supply products directly to Russia, so the supplies were arranged through an intermediary in the Republic of Belarus.
Instead of the standard zero customs duty rate, the Southern Electronic Customs Office applied an increased rate of 30% of the customs value to the imported components. The ground for doing this was that the customs office deemed the origin of the goods not to have been confirmed: Belarus was indicated as the country of destination in the certificate of origin, while the consignee was the Belarusian intermediary rather than the Russian company.
What our lawyers did
Pepeliaev Group’s lawyers developed a legal position according to which the origin of the goods was not refuted by Belarus being stated in the certificate as the country of destination and the Belarusian intermediary being indicated as the consignee.When issuing the certificate, the competent Polish authority applied the same rules for determining the origin of goods approved by the Eurasian Economic Commission as would have applied if Russia had been indicated as the country of destination.
During the court proceedings, the customs authority insisted that the company should have declared the information contained in the certificate of origin obtained in Belarus and indicated that Belarus was the country of dispatch. The customs authority proposed postponing consideration of the case so that the company could make the relevant amendments to the customs declaration and subsequently withdrew its claims.
Pepeliaev Group’s lawyers demonstrated that this approach was contrary to the rules for completing customs declarations and would expose the company to the risk of subsequent adjustments, including by other customs authorities.
Significance of the project
Following the Russian Constitutional Court’s Resolution No. 34-P dated 16 October 2025 and the subsequent amendments to the Non-Preferential Rules for Determining the Origin of Goods, the practice of how customs authorities apply them is changing.In this case, we successfully prevented an attempt to apply a formalistic approach to the certificate of origin and prevented the inclusion in the customs declaration of information that could have created additional customs risks for the company in the future.
Case No. A53-2203/2026.